Talk:Child pornography/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

There are some sexologists who said that...

banning CP is "not only deprive children of their sexual freedom,but also deprive children of their freedom to show their body and how sexy are them" and "A certain degree of sexual activity is necessary and beneficial for children"(Translated from Chinese:"可见这法律不但剥夺了儿童性交的自由,也剥夺了他们展示自己身体和性感一面的自由...一定程度上的性活动对儿童是必须和有益的"), by Ng Man Lun(吴敏伦),Founding President of World Association of Chinese Sexologists.Should we put it on the article?,see pages 19-22,and I remember that Chinese Sexologist Li Yinhe who also believe that have sex with children is not always harmful,if they are on their own initiative.--So47009 (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It is doubtful it should be added based on this description. Wikipedia has a policy called WP:FRINGE where views/sources that are very small and contradicted by numerous stronger, more reliable sources do not need to be added to an article. Further, the article you posted is in Chinese, making it difficult to verify if it says what you claim it does. It is also difficult to ascertain if Ng Man Lun has any academic credentials or license, if the statement is based on research or just his or her personal opinion, and if it was subject to peer-review. I also could not verify that Li Yinhe ever expressed the view you claim she did. Her work and activism seems to be centered around LGBT rights and changing criminal laws in China that less progressive than most Western countries. Of note is that it is a common tactic of anti-LGBT factions to accuse LGBT people and activists of promoting sex with children in order to discredit/disparage them, since this is universally considered harmful, so this claim is somewhat suspect.Legitimus (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ng Man Lun is a Psychiatrist who studied it at University of Hong Kong,and a registered therapist who has studied sex therapy in US ,see here,a Translated version,;and Li Yinhe pointed out it in problems of sexuality[性的問題],in which she said that the law about Age of consent is harmful for those engage in sexual activity on their own initiative.

digression:This may affect WP:CHILDPRO since it obstruct some sexologists who has those claims and want to editing wikipedia --So47009 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Also,the sentence"Children of all ages, including infants,are abused in the production of pornography"is not need to change,but adding a text"some sexologists,such as ABC ,said..."--So47009 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have done a cursory translation of the material, and it would not seem to support your assertions. First and most important: This article we are discussing here is about pornography, not age of consent and sexual abuse of children. Your sources are about age of consent and child sexual abuse. In other words, your in the wrong article talk page. Second, the sources you posted appear to be merely opinions of individuals. This is very weak information for two reasons. One is that it is flatly contradicted by stronger sources where children who had sex too young were studied and compared with children who did not, and were found to have numerous psychological problems even when controlling for poverty, support, education etc. Two, there is a slightly tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless accurate aphorism called Skarka's Law, which essentially states no matter how incorrect or even reprehensible a position may be, if you search the internet long enough, you will find someone who will defend it. This is why we have the WP:FRINGE rule: Just because somebody out there said it doesn't make it valid or worthy of mentioning.Legitimus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

OK…… although most source do not deal with the children agree or not，all call it“child sexual abuse”.And how about sexual right-related arguments？Ng believe that banning CP is violate “The right to autonomy and bodily integrity”，or something like that .--So47009 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect. The other studies, especially more recent ones, account for whether or not the child "agreed" and even if no force or coercion was used, harm was still demonstrated. The harm is different, but it is still there. Also, the "right to bodily autonomy" etc is not a scientific argument. By that logic, you would permit a child to chop off their own arm simply because they desire to do so. Even when an adult desires to do that (and there is no medical reason to do so), it's considered a situation where other people are justified in intervening to prevent it.

You so far have still not explained if Ng talked about CP explicitly in his works. He does not appear to, and if you are just inferring that he believes this, that is also inappropriate because of the WP:SYNTHESIS rule.Legitimus (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence I have said is Ng’point. he believe that let a 10 year old children know about what are the possible harm of sexual intercourse is not harder than let them know about the harm of fighting,it depending on the social provide the knowledge about sex or not.So it is not a reason for banning CP.In conclusion,he said"Cancellation of penalties relating to virtual children and virtual sexual intercourse（which means CP by inferred as above）"--So47009 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Also,your views may be correct ，but not sure since it have a lot a factors ,see The Harm Argument part of here--So47009 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That last article actually supports what I said about harm and raises almost the exact same point, as flimsy as it is for a source. But even if I were to disregard all the problems I have raised so far, there seems to be too much a language barrier to verify this claim. I cannot rely on your translation since you are the one advancing the argument, and your own apparent limitations are making this conversation difficult. Which raises the question why you are so intent to adding this material to the English-language version of the page, considering the Chinese language version also does not use these sources or make these arguments.Legitimus (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK,I believe that English version can get me a lot of useful information about this topic, there are so many people editing it.Since I can't translate the whole paper and it always become mojibake when I copy it,I want to finish the discussion--So47009 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's also fairly irrelevant to the article, which is about child pornography, not child sexual behavior. Anything which could be viewed as legitimatizing child pornography (as the term is meant in the article and common discussion) should not be included, as per common sense and decency and the need to protect children, which is a legal policy of WP, which is linked above. This sort of thing may be fine for an article on sexting, as discussed above, but putting it here is again unnecessary. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

OP seems refering to auto-sexuality or minor-initiated contact. For example, suppose a child makes sexual contact with a sleeping adult (technically rape) video tapping the interaction to show their friends for "educational" reasons. Or, suppose a minor discovers masturbation then wishes to document their masturbation sessions. Primarily, someone significantly sheltered might not even know that constitutes a crime. Not only that, but, if the minor developes a strong free speech ethic prior to sexual education, then learning about the criminality might cause non-trivial moral dissonance. OP probably also means erotic nude imagery, where a minor might decide to experiment with using their body to create art.

You responding editors seem to expect a source to say "sex with children is healthy for children" to support OP's claim.

Avoid letting WP:OUTRAGE blind you to what others intend.

Anonymous Kekistani
22:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"that exploits" + the U.S.A. + Loli

The U.S.A. regards drawings of underage characters as child pornography, therefore illegal to possess.

Shouldn't the lede reflect that, since, in general, hentai qualifies as pornography?

Anonymouse Kekistani
22:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Anonymouse Kekistani' is misinformed. See Simulated_child_pornography#Virtual_child_pornography: "Virtual Child Pornography is legal to possess in the United States." —Blanchette (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"Child Sexual Abuse Material" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Child Sexual Abuse Material. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SwissArmyGuy (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relation to rape pornography

Is all child pornography rape pornography? (User:Wikipedianuhai) 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thanks. LoganBlade (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Child pornography also includes simply filming a child naked. For sexual purposes, of course. And that does not classify as rape. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation for CP acronym

User:Bkonrad added a for the acronym "CP" in the first sentence. I removed it, stating "A cited quote in the article body uses the abbreviation". That was then reverted with the statement "that's not at all helpful -- which one?".

All it takes is a ctrl+f search for "CP" on the article to find it. It is in Child pornography § Relation to child molestation and abuse. The citation is number 47: Wolak, Janis; Finkelhor, David; Mitchell, Kimberly (2011). "Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics". Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. 23 (22): 22–42. doi:10.1177/1079063210372143. PMID 21349830. S2CID 14088692.

I don't think it's worth putting this citation in the lead sentence, since the acronym is a relatively common one. If people think it should be added then they can do that. But the should not remain, so I'm removing it for now.

Nog642 (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In the introduction section the source for video game doesnt back it up

It's an article about a Nintendo game. I think this needs a better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Apple “solution”

I think we’re gonna have the “Apple solution” (https://www.wired.com/story/apple-csam-detection-icloud-photos-encryption-privacy/) to be covered somewhere, aren’t we? --Filippof (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, not in the U.S. we won't - because the general rule of thumb is that a private actor becomes a government actor for purposes of fourth amendment constitutional search and seizure law (e.g. the search warrant requirement) such that the government may not enlist the assistance of private actors to evade the general requirements of the fourth amendment. (e.g. if a private individual acts at the behest of the government the private individual becomes a government actor for purposes of constitutional law). In apple's case because of Apple's rather entangled history of involvement with the government and government funding for such, the Supreme court would most likely hold that Apple would be a government actor for purposes of Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents / 42 U.S.C. 1983 as to enable Apple to be sued for fourth amendment violations. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "child pornography" only child sexual abuse

Pornography is closely associated with performances by adults where it is understood to be consensual. A child cannot give its consent. It is an important distinction to make. All sexual material of children is abuse and a crime scene.

Calling it pornography also confuses people who work to prevent this material from being spread and have to investigate it. They work with crime scenes and get no pleasure from examining this abusive material.

Change the title of this article to "Child sexual abuse". JanusArtois (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

We already have an article named Child sexual abuse. We try to follow how reliable sources describe subjects. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed to "child sexual abuse material". The term child pornography is more commonly used by the general public but it's being called Child sexual abuse material by the organizations that deal with. https://www.netsafe.org.nz/csam-law/#:~:text=Child%20sexual%20abuse%20material%20or,their%20suffering%20is%20not%20shown. https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/csam https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/27/lockdown-hampering-removal-of-child-sexual-abuse-material-online https://www.ecpat.org/what-we-do/online-child-sexual-exploitation/ https://childrescuecoalition.org/educations/its-not-child-pornography-its-child-sexual-abuse-material/ 49.224.233.120 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding also that Interpol considers "Child sexual abuse" to be more appropriate terminology.

https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Crimes-against-children/Appropriate-terminology Ckoerner (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

First, "Child Pornography" was and currently still is the common term for this type of material. While their are anti-child porn advocates pushing for the term "Child Sexual Abuse material" to be used instead of "Child Pornography" that hasn't been universally adopted by everyone as of 2021. Thus is fair to call it as of 2021 the term most common. Second, As for the claim thatit can't be called child pornagrphy becuase it involves abuse, that is false. Pornaphy, while an exact definition has been hard to pin down in history (i.e. I Know it when I see it.), Typical dictionary definitions include something along the lines of "...intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." and thus "child porn" fits that definition given that it is designed to do just that for the intended audience (It needn't arrouse everyone who views it to be called a form of porn, just as not all adult porn needs arouse every viewer to considered porn which is why we have the concept of niche porn.). Thus the best way to handle this terminolgy issue as of 2021 is to stick with the term "Child Pornography" as the article title and main term used as it is the most common term and then include info on the user of the aternate term "Child Sexual Abuse Material" (CSAM) and explain why they advocate for it's use over the term "Child pornagraphy". We can also allow for people to use the CSAM term where the sources use the term. If at some point the latter term becomes the default we can edit the article to reflect that, though we should at that time add at least a sentence describing how the term 'Child Pornography" was once the common term for CSAM. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC) 02:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

First, I want to remind you that Wikipedia policy is that one must remain civil when discussing article on the talk page. Thus calling people idiots on the talk page violates the Wikipedia:Civility policy so you have been warned. Beyond that, What we call choose to child porn/child sex abuse material (CSAM) on this Wikipedia matters even if it doesn’t to you, as there are is Wikipedia policy that help us decide what to call things to maintain consistency and clarity so the Wikipedia:Commonname policy applies here. This has nothing to do the fact that child porn involves abuse, as what you choose to call it is irrelevant to that fact so I don’t understand why that triggered you so much. Regardless, the fact that child involves abuse does not preclude debates over what exactly the proper definition of child porn should be in this article or in general given the lack of consensus in the outside world as to whether depictions of mere nudity involving minors is abusive. To date mere underage non-sexual nudity has never been defined as child abuse in any Western country and this article should reflect that fact. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharliechaplin You are absolutely right. Mleonard85032 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharliechaplin I deleted my response because it doesn't serve the community. Mleonard85032 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the term pornography is defined in the dictionary as "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." This means that the term "pornography" does not, per se, carry a connotation of "consent" - but rather is a neutral term with respect to the notion of consent. This is especially true given the word roots the term decends from- the ancient Greek Pornos, which is taken by the majority of scholars to have the connotation of prostitution for hire; used in the Pauline writings to mean specifically "a male prostitute; a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse". Therefore, the notion that "consent" is somehow implied by the term pornography is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and has no credible basis whatsoever, but rather is reaching for inappropriate political semantics. 19:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.191.34 (talk)

Firstly the general term used by the public and most of the media is child pornography. Wikipedia uses general terms. Secondly the term CSAM is regarded by many as a redefinition by some organisations of what constitutes child abuse. Wikipedia does not use redefinitions or further agendas. As this is a general subject and not an academic one wikipedia also goes by the general consensus and not by the "experts" or organisations. The issue of consent is really irrelevant here though, lastly as much as people in general don't want to admit it there is a nonpublic debate raging that not all pornographic images constitute abuse and when children are able to consent or not. Whether you agree with it or not does not change this fact and to ignore it is not a neutral stance. Biofase ^flame| stalk  19:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

Change pornography that unlawfully exploits children for sexual stimulation to simply pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation (remove unlawfully). There is no such thing as lawful exploitation of children. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have moved 'unlawful' to instead read unlawful pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation in order to still be clear that this type of pornography is unlawful. Tollens (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)