Posted by David Holloway: 
I am for the protection on minors and we have laws for that. I have to agree that women are being supressed by their own gender. If a man is comfortably with his sexuality he is a stud, if a woman is comfortable in her sexuality then she is a slut.

As a parent I don't want naked photos of my children being used to satisfy some pervert who is sexually attracted to children, however, I do not think that you should suppress pornagraphy (child porn being the exception). If there is a consumer base for it and people willing to create the product then more power to them.

D.

I was trying to be non-biased in my essay, but I really like you're response. My philosophy is that -- yes, many parents sell their children to the pornography industry in this country, and suffer no legal repercussions. This is because technically the photos are not considered pornographic, although they obviously cater to a paying clientele who enjoys looking at children in provocative poses. The parents may justify this by saying that the money contributes to the child's education etc., but in fact I suspect that a few years down the road, the child himself/herself will look at the photos they posed for with a sense of ... shame perhaps. And that is what is sad to me.

But as I said, this type of content is totally legal. So what is the significance of our child pornography laws? Is it possible that lobbyists are using child pornography restrictions as a gateway to restrictions on (other types of) pornography?

Posted by Cestra Winslow: 
there are more freaks out there, than outspoken cristians

Lol...can someone be a freak as well as an outspoken Christian? Check out the "sex addiction" web sites sometime. There are a lot of Christians who spend endless hours looking at pornography, just like the rest of us.

Posted by Stan Goldstein: 


Now this might sound silly, but remember, other gubberments, have done it, both historicly & in modern times. 

Have you read:  "Animal FArm", "Farenheit 451", & "1984"?  I think those are all true stories, but I'm not sure.

hell, just rent "People Vs. Larry Flynt"

Posted by jimmyd: 
do i believe pornography exploits women? no. i believe it mostly exploits men... and no, i'm not talking about gay porn.

An excellent point--is it possible for women to realize that they are empowered by their sexuality? Somehow we as a society have come to believe that a woman's sexuality is sacred and must therefore be hidden. The truth is that a woman's sexuality is powerful, and can indeed make mice out of men--thus it must be restrained.

Posted by Stan Goldstein: 
ONLY the corporate wealth of the cosmetics industry will prevent them from requiring that women cover their faces with veils in public..

LOL...the scary part is that we are taking such interest in Islam in this country. In fact I believe the right-wing here will eventually adopt Islam as its little brother, just as it co-opted Christianity. Bombing Baghdad is only the beginning. Watch as the tables turn and we become slaves to their oil.

[is it possible for women to realize that they are empowered by their sexuality? 

there's a difference between women becoming "empowered by their sexuality" and women becoming empowered through (the use of) their sexuality.

MONEY empowers better than almost anything else. if money--a fair sum of it--can be obtained thru the use of one's sexuality, it might be (and its been my observation) that the resultant money is the thing that truly empowers... at least, in the case of porn stars.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

20 years ago, you spanked a kid for calling you a bitch, and you were applauded. Today you spank a kid for stealing from a store, you are lynched!

::::Reese decides it may be time to let the kids out of the closet for some execise and a water break::::

Posted by DreamPretty: 
An excellent point--is it possible for women to realize that they are empowered by their sexuality? Somehow we as a society have come to believe that a woman's sexuality is sacred and must therefore be hidden. The truth is that a woman's sexuality is powerful, and can indeed make mice out of men--thus it must be restrained.

If I told you that kind of stuff does not work on me.... would you take it as a challenge and try it out on me :-P

Ok... Maybe not.

I keep telling these girls that, but they do not listen.....

Posted by Ty Simone: 
My Take--- I just had to jump in.

If the person isn't have sex, and is not spread eagle with Genitalia being the predominate part of the picture, then it is art and not obscenity.

Age matters only so far as people seem to want to make it an issue.

Let me illustrate the point.

It is possible for a man in more than one state to marry a girl age 14. He can have sex with her. In at least one of the states, he can have other than traditional Missionary sex with her.
They can watch porn together before during and after their love making session if they want.
That same girl can sign legally binding contracts, get credit cards, be employed in almost any field, and for all intents and purposes (with a few exceptions) is considered an adult. (drinking and military coem to mind)
Sex with her is 100% legal in EVERY state, unless you turn on a camera.

Doesn't that seem a bit weird?

In another state, an 18 year old boy can get up to 20 years in jail for simply fondling his 17 year old girlfriend.

You can watch movies with nude children in them (Blue Lagoon, Papillon) even with Sexual connotations (Lolita) Yet you could be arrested for taking a picture of your baby in the bath tub....

"On November 2, 1995, Toni Marie Angeli was arrested at Zona Photo Labs in Massachusetts. She was picking up pictures of her 4-year-old son Nico in their bathtub. The photos were for a photography course she was taking at Harvard. Detective W. Phillips of Cambridge accused her of being a child pornographer and threatened: "if you don't cooperate, I will take that kid away from you on the spot."

Want to see a whole list of inane incidents involving "Child Nudity"?

http://www.libertocracy.com/Webessays/s … 20list.htm

Meanwhile, Let's put things in perspective.
Kiddie porn is bad!
Nudes kids = Art
Ask pope Beniditto, he got annoited pope under 73 nude kids (I think that number is correct)

We need to quit this pendulum society mentality.

20 years ago, you spanked a kid for calling you a bitch, and you were applauded. Today you spank a kid for stealing from a store, you are lynched!

20 years ago, the though of nude kids was nothing to mainstream society. You used to jump inot the YMCA pool naked (it was all male) and that was that.
Now, well, read the article above....

Society will swing back soon I hope.....

It's funny that some of the States in this Country where th age of consent is under 18..

As for the family photos of your children taking a bath let's look at the definition on sexually explicite conduct. According to Federal Law 18 USC 2256, sexually explicit conduct is:

“sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

I don't see family photos of a child falling into any of these categories do you?

As for women I feel they should be strong in their sexuality and it they chose to share it either through photography or movies, or being sexually aggressive more power to them. I think the nude female is the most beautiful thing in the world, not only for her beauty but her sense of confidence in herself. I personally love a sexually strong woman because I know we could enjoy each other more then if she feels she cannot express her desires and I think it makes her a stronger person. 

Sorry for my rambling. I personally feel that the porn idustry is safe, it's a multi-billion dollar industry and money talks.

D. 

As for the family photos of your children taking a bath let's look at the definition on sexually explicite conduct. According to Federal Law 18 USC 2256, sexually explicit conduct is:

“sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

I don't see family photos of a child falling into any of these categories do you?

That is federal law, and federal law can be modified by the states to include, but not exclude.

In otherwords, in Virginia for example, they had (and may still have) the addition of sexually implied acts. (an example is a picture of a girl with her head in a guys crotch taken from behind her.
you can not see his genitals, you can not see her performing oral sex, however the pictures is suggestive of it.

When it includes a minor, in at least one jurisdiction I know of, it is child pornography. The person was convicted last year for taking that photo.
Appeals are pending.

However, the supreme court has ruled 3 times now, that nude children, in and of itself is neither obscene nor pornographic.
And that can not be changed by any state.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

As for the family photos of your children taking a bath let's look at the definition on sexually explicite conduct. According to Federal Law 18 USC 2256, sexually explicit conduct is:

“sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

I don't see family photos of a child falling into any of these categories do you?

That is federal law, and federal law can be modified by the states to include, but not exclude.

In otherwords, in Virginia for example, they had (and may still have) the addition of sexually implied acts. (an example is a picture of a girl with her head in a guys crotch taken from behind her.
you can not see his genitals, you can not see her performing oral sex, however the pictures is suggestive of it.

When it includes a minor, in at least one jurisdiction I know of, it is child pornography. The person was convicted last year for taking that photo.
Appeals are pending.

However, the supreme court has ruled 3 times now, that nude children, in and of itself is neither obscene nor pornographic.
And that can not be changed by any state.

Posted by DreamPretty: 
our "standard of decency" is determined today by the sexually retarded Christian Right.

marry me.

but seriously, you make some good points.

Posted by Stan Goldstein: 
Have you read:  "Animal FArm", "Farenheit 451", & "1984"?  I think those are all true stories, but I'm not sure.

All three are fiction, and your assertations as to the progression of what is going to come to pass are far-fetched, at best.

I'm not a fundamentalist, nor am I a radical conservatism. However, conservatives can easily argue against what you are saying DreamPretty (and others). The Greek and Roman empires suffered from internal strife brought on partially by their own hedonistic and self-centered behaviors. We see how powerful the Greeks and Italians are today.

The Soviets sought to oppress EVERYTHING their Socialist government deemed to be a danger to the state. Where are they today?

Talk to someone from Czech, or Russia or Germany, where the unemployment is well into double digits. Talk to people in Cananda and England where they have socialized medicine and it takes forever to get treated for a bad tooth or a common problem like a peptic ulcer. Talk to people in Austrailia, where the base federal tax rate exceeds 40%. Another great thing about this country, is that any one of us can leave, at any time...not all nations all that, either. I mention all of that because we take our freedoms and our society for granted. Is there any other nation on earth that people will risk their lives for to get in?

There needs to be a check and balance within our society. Just because something bothers you, and you don't agree with it, doesn't make you correct. Having a check and balance system means that there's always going to be some people who don't agree with something...and it's the freedom this country was built on that allows you to disagree, and to voice your opinion. Many people today seem to forget that. Even today, in many countries around the world, you cannot voice your discontent with the government or it's policies in public, and a website like this would never be allowed to exist.

Although you may find certain laws to be personally annoying, there is no way to maintain a society without the rule of law. Where there is no law, there is no society and without society, there is complete breakdown of the social structure that makes up the nation.

There's no chance 100% of the people will be pleased 100% of the time...none. But that's not what government is supposed to be about, anyway.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
David, You are arguing a point with me we agree on here.
chill a minute.

The image in question did NOT show a sexual act. Simulated or otherwise.

It may be interpreted as such, and the way the whole seem seemed to have gone was that the girl in question and the guy inquestion in the photo were not even in the same room at any time.
However, I can not verify that fact.

There was nothing in the picture that indicated sex other than the fact that the back or her head blocked his genital regions, which (if you believe the person charged) were never exposed.

The court found however that it conveyed a sexual act simply by the interpretation of the photo and was therefore obscene and considered to fall under their child porn laws.

Federal courts have ruled exactly opposite of that case btw.
Which is why COPA was overturned.

"The act of simulating a sex act would still fall under the Federal Law"
In the movie Lolita, the 14 year old girl (her real age) Simulated sex 4 times, once oral.

Therefore, the simple act of simulating sex does NOT make it a violation of federal statues for child pornography purposes.
There has to be a second piece to the puzzle. Otherwise, anyone that bought that movie, not to mention the distributors and the makers and producers etc... would be in jail now.

States can not lesson Federal. The Supreme Court has said as much to California and Oregon on numerous occasions.
They can make the laws stricter though, as Virginia did.

However, I think you either took what I said originally wrong, or perhaps misunderstood, because:

1. I know pictures of nude minors is not illegal.
2. I do not condone this age of legality crap, since it is basically filled with holes anyway.
3. Yes, there is a line between art and porn with children, and the Supreme Court made that line quite clear IMO.

We are arguing the same way :-P

Posted by Ty Simone: 
Nice Post Matthew.

I would counter historically the Roman Empire thing.
Depending on the Historian you ask of course...

However I feel if the Roman empire had the Technology we possess today, they'd be rulers of the world.

That aside, I think that people tend to forget that a Democratic Republic is not a majority rules thing. It is quite the opposite.
A D.R. protects the interests of the Minorities from the Majority.

Food for thought.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
What Dave? No comment on the Romans?
:-P

Posted by David Holloway: 
I think one of the problems we have in this country is that we have judges who rule based on their personal beliefs instead on what the Constitution or our laws state. 

federal judges are appointed. they're appointed by politicians. politicians appoint judges for their personal beliefs and how those personal beliefs coincide with the beliefs of those who put the politicians in office. your beef should be with the system that puts judges on the bench with views that play to those who put them there.  and as a closely related side-note, this is exactly why separation of church and state is becoming a freaking joke. but i could write a thesis on that subject and who's got time for thesis writing? i'd rather shoot a camera.

Posted by David Holloway: 
When it comes to pornagraphy thats where as Ty says the minority is protected. The majority may not like it but it is not illegal and therefore protected.

i'm not sure if you're saying that it's a good thing or a bad thing that porn is protected by the 1rst Amendment, so i'll leave that alone. but as far as porn being somehow attached to a minority and that particular status having something to do with its protections under the bill of rights, i'd just like to say that an 8-to-10-billion-dollar a year industry is hardly one that is targeting a minority.

Posted by jimmyd: 

i'm not sure if you're saying that it's a good thing or a bad thing that porn is protected by the 1rst Amendment, so i'll leave that alone. but as far as porn being somehow attached to a minority and that particular status having something to do with its protections under the bill of rights, i'd just like to say that an 8-to-10-billion-dollar a year industry is hardly one that is targeting a minority.

Actually, the last survey I saw showed that those that think Pornography should be illegal outweighed those that think it should be legal by almost 2:1

The amount of money spent on the industry is misleading.
Technically speaking, I made something close to $20,000 off of the porn industry 2 years ago, with a site that had nothing to do with porn.
That number includes all money that changes hands. Not just the money funneling in.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by jimmyd: 

i'm not sure if you're saying that it's a good thing or a bad thing that porn is protected by the 1rst Amendment, so i'll leave that alone. but as far as porn being somehow attached to a minority and that particular status having something to do with its protections under the bill of rights, i'd just like to say that an 8-to-10-billion-dollar a year industry is hardly one that is targeting a minority.

Actually, the last survey I saw showed that those that think Pornography should be illegal outweighed those that think it should be legal by almost 2:1

The amount of money spent on the industry is misleading.
Technically speaking, I made something close to $20,000 off of the porn industry 2 years ago, with a site that had nothing to do with porn.
That number includes all money that changes hands. Not just the money funneling in.

Surveys are misleading, I believe. Those who are against porn are the ones who initiated the surveys, and targeted the anti-porn audience. The problem is people are afraid to be "pro-porn" because they are embarassed. If the public knew how much freedom we lose because of anti-porn legislation, they would stand behind their First Amendment rights.