Virtual Paedophiles

A mate of mine is a probation officer who works with sex offenders in the community and he’s told me all sorts of stories of people who’ve come across his desk

Ewwww.

I believe Pete Townshend has an excellent chapter in his book about this…….

Ewwww.

FFS not like that. 😕

You do realise that you’re all now on a watch list. Shit! Now so am I!

I googled earlier to see whether I could find figures for the percentage of paedophiles who had themselves been abused as children (which would suggest that you are not necessarily “born” a paedophile) but I struggled to find any definitive research and then decided that it was an area that I shouldn’t be spending too much googling. Plus the whole subject is so deeply depressing that I gave up.

Images of children being sexual abused are created to satisfy the lust and desire that some people have for sexual abusing children, does anyone doubt that?

Images of a murder, in say an Agatha Christie film, are not created to satisfy the lust and desire that some people have for committing murder. In fact it is to satisfy people’s innate desire to see murder crimes solved and murderers apprehended.

I am surprised that needs to be explained.

What about images of child abuse as part of a drama where the purpose is then to “satisfy people’s innate desire to see child abuse crimes solved and paedophiles apprehended”

I know in reality this is ‘tastefully’ done, you don’t need to see what is happening to be able to know what is happening. But I’m another that isn’t entirely sure why one is OK and the other not. In some cases is the purpose of art not to cause revulsion and that feeling of disgust to make the point how wrong it is?

This threads going a bit pete tong! The thread title had me thinking that Oculus or Apple Vision were going a bit dark with their releases!

Anyway, only reason for this post is that i used to think when people were charged it was due to photoshopping images, as they always said something like making indecent images or the likes with the charges, which always made me think what the hell kind of person does that kind of stuff, but then found out it was actually the legal term for downloading images.

but then found out it was actually the legal term for downloading images.

While that’s often the case, making the image, ie being the photographer, still or video, carries even more weight in court, downloading, sharing and viewing are part of the process for sure. I would guess that creating AI images would be seen as no different to creating photographic images, the fact that the images are entirely computer generated wouldn’t matter to a court of law, they would be considered to be offensive and of an obscene nature. Painted works of art have been removed from public display, and books have been removed from sale, like Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and those are merely words on a page: painting pictures with words… 😉

I’ve always been faintly troubled by the fact that somebody can have their life ruined because they clicked on something they shouldn’t have online. It seems to be getting close to thought crime.

There’s a palpable difference between unintentionally clicking on something online that looks a bit dodgy and turning to the dark web to trade pics of children being abused with like minded individuals.

The law already covers the creation of images that depict child abuse as such.  TBH, it might shock you to learn that until 1992, a certain well known red-top tabloid regularly published pictures of girls aged under eighteen on it’s third page and has even been known to publish photographs taken at some undetermined point in the past on the subject’s sixteenth birthday.   Eww.

I don’t think showing pictures of 17 year old people posing for photos in a ‘controlled’ environment count as paedophilia do they.

I don’t think showing pictures of 17 year old people posing for photos in a ‘controlled’ environment count as paedophilia do they.

The actual definition can be difficult to pin down.  However, it doesn’t stop it making your skin crawl.  And the fact it was in one of the best, if not the best, selling newspaper in the UK just makes it truly horrific.

I’m hoping the days where, ‘If there’s grass on the pitch let’s play’ is an acceptable mainstream attitude are gone.

I’ve always been faintly troubled by the fact that somebody can have their life ruined because they clicked on something they shouldn’t have online.

Maybe David Cameron had the right idea and we should only be allowed to look at government approved pornography.

Although I worry that, even though I like to think I have sick tastes, they are nothing compared to what your average Tory MP is into.

The world is definitely a better place without Page 3, but I don’t think it meets any accurate definition of paedophilia.

Maybe we could ask Stacey, 20, from Watford, for her considered opinion.

I don’t think showing pictures of 17 year old people posing for photos in a ‘controlled’ environment count as paedophilia do they.

Assuming Wikipedia is correct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978), then I’m afraid in the UK you’re guilty of looking at child porn.

Samantha Fox was 16 years old when she was persuaded to show her breasts to Sun readers.

Was it legal? Yes just about obviously otherwise the Sun would have been prosecuted.

Did it titillate paedophiles like Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile? Very likely I would have thought.

Was morally justifiable? No of course not. They simply found a loophole in the child protection laws. Even pornographers stick to the no under 18 years old rule.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/dec/12/samantha-fox-glamour-model-fame-16-stalkers-david-cassidy

During her shoot as a finalist in the Sunday People competition, the photographer told her that “having such ample bosoms and such tiny hips was so unusual”. Summing up her appeal, he told her: “You have the face of a child and the body of a woman.

“When I think about it now, it sounds a bit creepy, to be honest, but he liked that I was very natural, no makeup,” she says. She puts her success as a Page 3 model down to her professionalism and enthusiasm as well as her looks.

Towards the end of the shoot, the photographer encouraged her to do a few topless pictures, promising they weren’t for publication – just to show the editors. Her father took a little convincing, but her mother, she writes, “was about to burst with pride and had no doubts”. Fox was grateful for the opportunity. “You only had to look around where I lived,” she writes. “There were plenty of people who had kids young. Plenty who were unemployed. Plenty who had rough, low-paying jobs.”

Fox came second in the competition, but despite the photographer’s promises, her bare breasts were printed on the Sunday People front page. Her headteacher was not amused.

This was a 16 year old.

Let’s face it, if it wasn’t strictly speaking pedophilia, it was pedophilia adjacent.

Wasn’t that the 18 limit the result of an amendment to the legislation in 2003 previously it was 16?

Also it’s not “child porn”, it it is indecent images of children or child abuse. The use of porn risks normalising or belittling a horrible crime.

With regards to AI pseudo-images is nothing new and has been prosecuted before.

As mentioned above it can be fairly difficult to click on a link inadvertently but it does happen a MPS officer who was sent something via WhatsApp springs to mind and I dealt with the aftermath of an online forum where the subject matter couldn’t be ascertained from the forum name. It was also in a geeky bit of the internet, IRC, so people who were IRC geeks might click on it wondering what it was and click off straight away as the front page was explicit. A decision was taken not to investigate users who clicked on once and for less than ten seconds as it was accepted these would be innocent browsers.

Wasn’t that the 18 limit the result of an amendment to the legislation in 2003 previously it was 16?

Yeah, that’s in the Wikipedia link I posted earlier. 16 year olds on page 3 were legal at the time, but wouldn’t be now.

Wasn’t that the 18 limit the result of an amendment to the legislation in 2003 previously it was 16?

Also it’s not “child porn”, it it is indecent images of children or child abuse.

I am not entirely sure what you are saying but why do you think that the legislation was amended in 2003?

I assume it was because indecent images of a 16 year old was considered unacceptable.

The use of porn risks normalising or belittling a horrible crime.

Who to? Not on this forum it certainly doesn’t.

Because s7 of the Protection of Children Act details the change and references the legislation producing the change. Before 2003, possibly in the time of Ms Fox being photographed I don’t know when that was, it was 16 and then it was amended by legislation to 18 in 2003, which would render the same creation of images now illegal (if it was adjudged to be an indecent image).

I don’t know what caused the change in age limit to occur, it could be a culmination of a number or concerns.

Who to? Not on this forum it certainly doesn’t.

Mate, it’s not up for debate.

We don’t say “child porn” any more. It’s the wrong word.

I don’t know what caused the change in age limit to occur, it could be a culmination of a number or concerns.

I am surprised that you have detailed knowledge of section 7 of the Protection of Children Act 2003 but your knowledge doesn’t extend to what caused the change.

Would you not hazard a guess?

We don’t say child porn anymore

Used 6 times on page 1 (not by me, I don’t think) and still sounds like absolutely the most disgusting thing possible when I read those 2 words together. But hey, I’m probably too thick to discuss these things with you people so I’ll leave you to it.

Used 6 times on page 1

It’s not something I’d ever thought of but we all know language is important.  I probably would have said it myself without thinking but now it’s been pointed out it’s obviously the wrong thing to say.

The issue is that porn is completely normal and OK.  Child porn normalises child abuse by making it sound like just another option on the menu of preferences given on your preferred outlet.

As the Sun showed, attitudes were/are far too relaxed to very young girls being sexualised.  Mainstream attitudes just mean that ‘extreme’ attitudes move even further into the realm of horrific.   So removing normalising language from our everyday use might not make much difference but attitudes change by inches at a time, not miles.

Like I said, I hadn’t given it any thought until now so I’m glad it’s been pointed out.

I am surprised that you have detailed knowledge of section 7 of the Protection of Children Act 2003 but your knowledge doesn’t extend to what caused the change.

Not really that odd, I worked in operational child protection at CEOP but it was long after 2003 so I was used to the legislation but did not need to know the history of it.

Guessing? Public outcry over issues like Ms Fox, creating a clear gap between an adult and a child body image i.e removing the it’s a 16 year old not a 14 year old defence, maybe bringing it into line with other legislation / conventions (UN convention a child is under 18), who knows

who knows

I thought it was fairly obvious. “Protection of Children Act” suggests that it was introduced to protect children. A 16 year old is often legally considered to be a child.

Edit: It suggests that taking semi nude photographs of a 16 year old is harmful.

I thought it was fairly obvious. “Protection of Children Act” suggests that it was introduced to protect children.

I think we may be at slightly crossed tangents, I agree with what you say about protection but I have no idea what specifically led to the change in 2003 – the Protection of Children Act was passed with 16 as the relevant age in1978 and it was changed in 2003 by a different piece of legislation.

Usually there is a catalyst to cause changes such as an appeal showing issues or anomalies with current legislation (such as the European court stating that Police interference with private property not actually being covered under legislation hence the relevant parts of the Police Act being drafted) but I don’t know what the catalyst(s) was in this matter.

BruceWee
Full Member

The issue is that porn is completely normal and OK.

There is porn that is not completely normal and OK, though. Pretty much no matter where you are on that moral compass there’s stuff out there that you’re going to eventually say, no, that’s never appropriate.

I think that’s probably where this word choice thing isn’t so simple? I’ve probably said “child porn” in this thread, and I will again but that’s because I don’t think that saying “porn” normalises it at all. And tbh I think it’s a pretty massive mistake to think that way about normal porn, unless we’re breaking off subsections and saying “that’s a separate thing from porn in the same way that child porn is”

And yet, you can still have sex with them, marry them and then join the armed forces with them.

I’m not suggesting one is any better than the other but it’s certainly very mixed messages.

There is porn that is not completely normal and OK, though.

Sure, there’s also cinema that is not completely normal and OK.  Doesn’t make cinema in general not completely normal and OK.

Porn is made with consenting adults.  If it wasn’t consensual and/or they weren’t adults then it’s not porn, it’s a crime.

16,17,18,19 years old – all semantics and arbitrary numbers to me.  There is clearly a big difference between a 5 year old and a 17 year old but a line has to be drawn somewhere which was 16 and is now 18.  What will it be in the future, 21 and would that appear a bit silly to you today (it would to me).

What will it be in the future, 21 and would that appear a bit silly to you today (it would to me).

Depends what you’re talking about.

If you’re talking about the age of consent then that’s obviously a very complex subject and has many factors such as the age difference, if one person is in a position of authority, etc.  It’s pretty much impossible to boil down to a single number but we do it anyway.

If you’re talking about appearing topless in a national newspaper or on a website then maybe raising the age to 21 wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Or possibly change the definition so that models have to ‘look’ at least 25.  Obviously that’s open to interpretation but it’s a policy that’s used some places when buying alcohol.  ‘If we think you look under 25 you will be asked for id.’

I think the further we can get away from sexualising very young girls the better.

Did it titillate paedophiles like Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile? Very likely I would have thought.

Sam Fox would not titillate a paedophile. Think about it.

The world has changed its outlook massively in my 54 years on the planet. Topless pictures of 16 year olds and teachers having relationships with 6th formers are now, quite rightly, illegal.

But these are social constructs. The age of consent, iirc, didn’t exist before the Victorians, and other countries have different laws around that to us.

Over the years I’ve known* women who have modeled from Page 3 level to hardcore. All of them were responsible over 18s at when they made their choices.
*not in the biblical sense.

I think the further we can get away from sexualising very young girls the better.

Definitely this. And some sports and dance groups need to think very carefully how they expect girls/women to dress and act.

I think the further we can get away from sexualising very young girls the better.

Yep, and a LONG way to go on that.   Still not a paedophilia issue to me though as that is very different.

Sam Fox would not titillate a paedophile. Think about it.

I wouldn’t know that, and thinking about it won’t help.

But a comment was made earlier on this thread that apparently the appeal Sam Fox had, when she was 16 and was conned into having her breasts photographed for publication, was that she had the face of a child but the body of a woman, apparently according to the photographer.

Thanks for the comments everyone. I knew I could rely on you for some robust opinions 🙂

I’m still not sure exactly what I think about the original issue as I find myself agreeing with comments from all sides.

It’s a tricky issue to discuss as most of us have a pretty fixed view on what is and is not acceptable when it comes to sex that we don’t really think should be up for discussion. But most of us are also willing to accept that other people should be allowed to do things that we find distasteful or morally wrong, up to a point. I guess what I’m trying to get clear in my own mind is where that point should be.

I used to think it was quite clear. Anything that harms children is wrong (I guess we can all agree on that one). Looking at pictures of child abuse may not directly harm the children but it encourages that abuse so is clearly (in my opinion) wrong. But once you get to people looking at “representations” (assuming children weren’t harmed in the production) I just think it gets a lot trickier. The argument just seems to be “these people are sick” but there is lots of questionable behaviour that we do tolerate.

Apparently it’s OK for consenting adults to dress as children for some “harmless”  bedroom fun. I heard a stand up comedian recently talking about how she was worried that if she died her family might find “that folder marked schoolgirls” on her computer and not realise it was “just” 20-somethings dressed as schoolgirls and I though “but why do you think that is OK?”. Is it ever OK for someone to call a partner “daddy” in the bedroom? The whole spanking fetish seems to be based around abusive adult/child experiences, but is tolerated. Porn made by consenting adults is apparently “fine” but we know some of the “actors” in those scenes were abused as children. It’s not OK to abuse children so why is it OK to carry on abusing them once they turn 18?

We seem to have accepted the line that we are not going to try to legislate people’s fantasies no matter how distasteful they make us feel.

I thought the drug analogy earlier was interesting. In both cases the policy of going after the users doesn’t seem to be solving the problem. I keep seeing articles about the “shocking” rise of child abuse content online. Every site that gets taken down seems to net hundreds of thousands of users and yet the “trade” still grows. If AI generated images are the methodone does banning them actually just increase demand for the “real” stuff and do more harm?

I actually thought the best argument against allowing the AI generated stuff was what you do when it becomes impossible to differentiate AI from “real” images. I’m comfortable with the line that anything that harms children is wrong and whatever you might think about the effectiveness of going after the “users” I’m sure we all want the law enforcement agencies to be able to identify the victims (and the people directly abusing them). That would become much harder if you couldn’t tell the fake from the real images. So, in that sense I think I could argue that an AI generated image of child abuse is causing harm.

it might shock you to learn that until 1992, a certain well known red-top tabloid regularly published pictures of girls aged under eighteen on it’s third page

Worse still, they had a countdown for Samantha Fox who was 15, for her 16th birthday, when they could legally publish pics of her topless. Think that was the Sun.

They were publishing pics of her in a tight top, low cut even though she was 15 at the time.

Exceedingly seedy.

I don’t think it was the Sun. I have a vague recollection of the Daily Star doing countdowns for 15 year olds, publishing revealing, but not nude, photos of them.

The mainstream media making lecherous comments about 15 year old girls and lusting after them was somehow seen as more acceptable :

Charlotte Church recalls the time Chris Moyles offered to sleep with her after she turned 16

I can’t imagine that Chris Moyles wouldn’t be sacked for making the same comment today.

The whole spanking fetish seems to be based around abusive adult/child experiences

According to who?

Porn made by consenting adults is apparently “fine”

According to who?

but we know some of the “actors” in those scenes were abused as children. It’s not OK to abuse children so why is it OK to carry on abusing them once they turn 18?

Who says they are continuing to be abused?

If AI generated images are the methodone does banning them actually just increase demand for the “real” stuff and do more harm?

You have that the wrong way round. Methodone gets given to existing addicts to get them and doesn’t allow them to quit since its more addictive than the drug it’s replacing.