DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Aceroassert** · 06-26-2009, 08:49 PM

Whilst it isn't child exploitation, it disturbs me that you think it's ok.

I never said it didn't bother me, just that you can't compare this in any way shape or form to REAL child exploitation. I avoided the topic of whether I thought it was good or bad because I was more interested in the actual crime part of the issue.

I think the dude is creepy and perverted. But still... to claim that photshopping a FACE is all it takes to qualify as child porn kinda lessens the plight of the truly exploited children.

There are exploited children, and then there are photoshopped celebrities. The two are nowhere near the same. Celeb nude photoshops have been done for ages. And it's hard to have sympathy for a person who was dating a 20 year old (cutting that statutory charge a lil close aren't we) and had a magazine cover scandal.

It makes no sense. There's no child nudity, and the end result is a person that doesn't even exist. Nobody was sexually exploited. In child pornography there is a minor who is exploited. In this instance it's an adult body. Are images children's faces now considered child pornography?

06-26-2009, 08:49 PM	#10
Aceroassert Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 444 Senior Member	Whilst it isn't child exploitation, it disturbs me that you think it's ok. I never said it didn't bother me, just that you can't compare this in any way shape or form to REAL child exploitation. I avoided the topic of whether I thought it was good or bad because I was more interested in the actual crime part of the issue. I think the dude is creepy and perverted. But still... to claim that photshopping a FACE is all it takes to qualify as child porn kinda lessens the plight of the truly exploited children. There are exploited children, and then there are photoshopped celebrities. The two are nowhere near the same. Celeb nude photoshops have been done for ages. And it's hard to have sympathy for a person who was dating a 20 year old (cutting that statutory charge a lil close aren't we) and had a magazine cover scandal. It makes no sense. There's no child nudity, and the end result is a person that doesn't even exist. Nobody was sexually exploited. In child pornography there is a minor who is exploited. In this instance it's an adult body. Are images children's faces now considered child pornography?
	Quote