[Aceroassert]

So apparently someone took a completely legal aged woman's naked body, and photoshopped Miley Cyrus face onto it. And they're calling it child porn.

I think the fact that they compare photoshopping a slutty star's (magazine cover scandal anyone) face onto a legal body to a child being exploited is pathetic.

Thoughts?

[golozhopik]

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

[RlUbQU3R]

I think its a bit odd but not illegal. Maybe a cause for further investigation of an individual at best.

[Biassasecumma]

where did rainwind say he thought it was ok? It is about as absurd imo as that australian that got convicted for cp because he had naughty simpsons movies. I don't undestand people that like lolicon or similar stuff, but i do know it isn't cp.

[T1ivuQGS]

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

I am going to have to agree with you [yes]

[golozhopik]

where did rainwind say he thought it was ok? It is about as absurd imo as that australian that got convicted for cp because he had naughty simpsons movies. I don't undestand people that like lolicon or similar stuff, but i do know it isn't cp.

I think the context of his post makes it clear.

And think about it, someone is photoshopping a 15 year olds face onto a nude body with the purpose of being sexually aroused by it. It isn't child exploitation, but it does disturb me if people don't see a problem with it.

[Assunkkensatt]

I think the context of his post makes it clear.

And think about it, someone is photoshopping a 15 year olds face onto a nude body with the purpose of being sexually aroused by it. It isn't child exploitation, but it does disturb me if people don't see a problem with it.

If it keeps even one going from sexually abusing a child, it's nothing but good.

[SpecialOFFER]

links? [thumbup]

[mazabotman]

Rule 1 ffs [cursing]

[Aceroassert]

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?

[Dokescoonse]

From what I understand about pedophiles it's like being gay it's in psychologically, I think pedophiles know it's wrong and many wish they were not born like this but they just can't help it. However if they can generate material that can suit their fantasies without harming a single child such as photoshopping or cartoons then perhaps this is better than giving pedophiles no escape at all?

While to many this is still sick and twisted, if it can decrease the very real problem child molestation, then perhaps it could be a good thing? I find people that are into bondage are strange too, but if no one gets hurt then I guess I shouldn't have a problem with it.

Just a thought.

[SpecialOFFER]

I did a google search........[rofl]

[ImapFidaarram]

So, other question.

In the UK the age of concent is 16, which in some US states would have you sharing a small room with a large black man who plans to corn hole you for a few years but I digress.

If you're allowed to have sex at the age of 16 and soft core pornography is illegal untill you're 18, how do you have sex? You can do it but you must keep your eyes shut?

[Cheaperisdeeper]

Look at Japan 14 is the legal age there. Sick bastads.

[Assunkkensatt]

Look at Japan 14 is the legal age there. Sick bastads.

TBH those "legal ages" are relevant only when you talk of real adults and young people, I mean, Finland has 16 as "legal age", but then there's exception of when the 2 people are only couple years apart (for example 16y with 14y is fine, 18y with 15y is not)

[DoniandaCoado]

I don't give a rats arse if it's not really her body, the fact that it's supposed to represent a childs body is just as bad. IMO even a drawing or painting of naked children that's intended to be erotic or to arouse is out of order.
I'm actually quite surprised by some of the people on this forums view on child pornography, maybe it's because I'm a parent but I think some of you lot need keeping away from children.[no]

[lopesmili]

I did a google search........[rofl]

I'm gunna need proof of that.

[AK47rulz]

I don't give a rats arse if it's not really her body, the fact that it's supposed to represent a childs body is just as bad. IMO even a drawing or painting of naked children that's intended to be erotic or to arouse is out of order.
I'm actually quite surprised by some of the people on this forums view on child pornography, maybe it's because I'm a parent but I think some of you lot need keeping away from children.[no]

I think there is a difference between 17 and 7....At 17 you don't have a "childs" body[rolleyes]

[Assunkkensatt]

I think there is a difference between 17 and 7....At 17 you don't have a "childs" body[rolleyes]

TBH that's kinda hypocritical too, that people claim under 18 (depending on country might be lower too) nude pics "childporn" or at least criminal otherwise, heck, you can go to nearest nudist beach and see those 17 years old naked bodies (and younger), also big portion of 17 years old are sexually active etc etc etc.

Though of course it is good that there are limits to this, and 18 is in many cases quite logical, but heck, if the legal age for sex in that country is lower, that should be too.

The most ridicilous case tied to this was some girl who was at least accused, maybe even convicted (can't remember) for child porn due the fact that she had taken nude pics of herself)

[golozhopik]

The most ridicilous case tied to this was some girl who was at least accused, maybe even convicted (can't remember) for child porn due the fact that she had taken nude pics of herself)

That's happened quite a few times actually, and i think they were trying to get a law changed in the UK a few months ago because so many teenagers are ending up on the sex offenders register for posting nude pics of themselves online or sending them to people at school.