Every day we see images of illegal acts (often real rather than recreated) so while (fake)?

Under what circumstances should it be illegal to look at a picture of something it is legal to do?

If the production of the image directly involved a criminal act. I'm thinking, in particular, of "upskirt" pics here-there's no crime in wearing a skirt, but the harmful invasion of privacy?

possession date

That's very obliging that you find out the date in advance. Makes it much easier to book the exorcist in early, before they get busy with the late summer poltergeist rush.

Every day we see images of illegal acts (often real rather than recreated) so while (fake) erotic images of children might feel different I find it hard to logically justify treating them differently from, for example, a murder in a TV drama.

We're also going to start seeing more questions?

I'd want to know how much context matters – will an image used to illustrate a serious article on child-porn be treated differently from a similar image on a website 'promoting' sex with minors?

Censors are legally required to take context (and things like frequency and degree) into consideration.

I?

The age of consent in Canada is fourteen. That's four years of keeping your eyes shut.

Not quite Emma.

Age of Consent in Canada is 16

Beginning May 1, 2008, the age of sexual consent in Canada is 16 years old.
The age of consent in Canada is the age?

Under what circumstances should it be illegal to look at a picture of something it is legal to do?

Not sure if this is exactly what you're diriving at, but it's quite legal to own all kinds of chemicals and household products — that can be combined to make bombs.?

Not quite Emma.

Ah, sorry, Dyan, I've missed this:

The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, raising the age of consent to 16 from 14.

That was after we spent time at Bardic Web trying to work out an acceptable 'youngest age' barrier for erotica there.?

"the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct?

I think that makes?

That is very odd to me

oh and it must be very nice to be a woman with an A-Cup and be told you no?

Really I think?

I'd want to know how much context matters – will an image used to illustrate a serious article on child-porn be treated differently from a similar image on a website 'promoting' sex with minors?

This reminds me of the idea of a teenage boy feeling certain stirrings upon seeing a?

This reminds me of the idea of a teenage boy feeling certain stirrings upon seeing a photo of a topless African woman in National Geographic.

At my school it was the boy with his face in the back of a goat...a very well thumbed volume that one

I?ve been slogging my way through a job which has allowed me to categorically state that the most boring place in the country is Clive. Sorry, Clive.

No, don't apologise. Having lived in Clive from age 8 thru 18, I can attest that Clive is indeed the most boring place?

Really I think making looking at an image illegal is basically creating a thought crime.

This is the line that Ms Naughty has taken (page contains no offensive material, but words likely to trip your work filter.)

If a model is over 18, she is legal. The magazine in question?

No, don't apologise. Having lived in Clive from age 8 thru 18, I can attest that Clive is indeed the most boring place in the country. And that's being kind.

Agreed. I mean, I grew up in Hastings, and even that was a step up from Clive.

There have been cases of girls below the age of 18 being charged with making child pornography for taking photos of themselves and circulating them.

Indeed – I've also heard of such cases in the US, where the prosecutors then pushed for them to be tried as adults. Could be?

Could be an urban myth – surely that would have created enough of a logical paradox to destroy the world?

Nope, it's completely true. Russell has linked to the case on an Up Front thread before, but I can't remember where to find it.

I thought it was generally accepted that Levin is the most boring place in New Zealand. Has Clive eclipsed it?

Oh yes, in fact the whole point of Transmission Gully seems to be that it will enable motorists to reach Levin from Wellington 23 minutes sooner.

As I always say?

they're not proper women and men who find them attractive are perverts

Only the men? ;)

Could be an urban myth – surely that would have created enough of a logical paradox to destroy the world?

Something to do with "sexting", if I am thinking of the same thing. Kids?

a logical paradox

No problem in a faith-based politico-legal system

I thought it was generally accepted that Levin is the most boring place in New Zealand. Has Clive eclipsed it?

Levin has a good playground, good swimming pool (including hydroslide), and at least one good cafe (the name escapes me). Obviously I travel with children almost all the time.

New?

the whole point of Transmission Gully

Joyce has yet to meet a motorway he doesn't love

oh and it must be very nice to be a woman with an A-Cup and be told you no longer look like a women. slightly more degrading than the pictures id say

Tristan: I guess you didn't get the memo — a woman's worth resides in her tits and her?

I thought it was generally accepted that Levin is the most boring place in New Zealand. Has Clive eclipsed it?

What, no votes for Lumsden?

Under what circumstances should it be illegal to look at a picture of something it is legal to do?

Ooh, I've got one: voting. I don't want any photos circulating of what I did in the ballot booth..

"the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct?

There goes the start of Consider Phlebas. Good book too.

Note that in Australia, they're still trying to figure out if this includes female ejaculation :))

I have been told our own censors are obliged to spend a lot of time trying to decide whether they're looking at female ejaculation (okay) or urination (probably not okay). I'm also told the?

Real question worth pondering is why is one ok and the other not? is it something related to the chemical content?

Too much nitrogen is bad for the eyes.

I agree with Isabel. In answer to your question Emma, I'd have to say, never. It should never be illegal for an 'adult' to look at a picture of something it is legal to do.

The problem is where the picture is of something legal that is pretending very hard?

It comes down to whether viewing depictions of an act can reasonably be expected to encourage a significant number of people who otherwise would not, to engage in that act.

Yeah, and I find this very shaky ground. Consider: watching lolicon/shotacon (link SFW) will turn you into a paedophile. Now?

Yeah, and I find this very shaky ground. Consider: watching lolicon/shotacon (link SFW) will turn you into a paedophile. Now consider: watching gay porn will turn you gay.

But that's not (quite) what they're saying – the line is that people who already have pedophilic tendancies and view the porn?

I still say there needs to be a ton more research before I buy into that line, but it is a more reasonable statement.

There's some disagreement coming through in the research, but the stuff mentioned in that lolicon article is interesting:

Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama observe a strong?

I'd buy that. Is there any data on any other countries?

For example, any countries that markedly decreased the availability of porn and had a subsequent increase in crime...

I'd buy that. Is there any data on any other countries?

This is a research paper which seems to suggest that the same is true for the US. Note, though, that the concentration here is not on child pornography but adult pornography.

Personally, I'm not at all convinced that there's?

Personally, I'm not at all convinced that there's a causal link between porn and decreased sexual violence, but I am pretty convinced that the data indicates a lack of causal link between pornography and increased sexual violence.

I have to agree with you there Emma, Zhang Feng may also.

I?

I have been told our own censors are obliged to spend a lot of time trying to decide whether they're looking at female ejaculation (okay) or urination (probably not okay). I'm also told the time spent thus is a source of considerable frustration to them.

Obviously I'm an innocent soul,?

Obviously I'm an innocent soul, but I would have presumed it would have been something that could have been determined at a glance. Are there women out there who look like they're having an orgasm while actually peeing?

Well, that's the theory. There's a debate over whether "squirting" is ejaculation?

Well, that's the theory. There's a debate over whether "squirting" is ejaculation at all, or just a peeing trick. Or so I am told.

Anna Span recently got a British court to rule that yes, female ejaculation is a real thing. And here's the New Scientist explaining how it works.?

Silly women. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.

It's been linked before, but it deserves to be linked again.

There goes the start of Consider Phlebas. Good book too.

I was thinking the same thing when I reread that passage the other day.

Anna Span recently got a British court to rule that yes, female ejaculation is a real thing. And here's the New Scientist explaining how it works.

Well thank god. I was unaware of this development in the 'science'. About time...

Silly women. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.

Now now,?

And here's the New Scientist explaining how it works.

Amazing. I wonder if any women get prostate cancer?

yes, female ejaculation is a real thing

I must say, I'm a bit amazed that this is controversial.

I must say, I'm a bit amazed that this is controversial.

Consider: many diagrams of female genitalia used in sex education omit the clitoris – it not being involved in reproduction. Male pleasure is innately involved in the process of making babies but female pleasure isn't, so the organs and?

I must say, I'm a bit amazed that this is controversial.

I wouldn't go so far as to say controversial, just.... interesting? Mostly when you're talking about porn, and censorship, and especially Australia's retarded new rules/laws and if "watersports" are banned then should "squirting" also be? Because it's not real,?

*My understanding is that if something were provably squirting and not peeing it?

"Uh... dude... it does exist".

Unfortunately, one of the problems is that much of this commercial pornography features women who aren't ejaculating, but are instead using a bag filled with liquid to create the appearance of ejaculation.

I'm also worried that once this becomes mainstream not only will there be?

Bull... I spend half my waking hours examining, cutting apart, putting together, removing or rearranging female reproductive organs... Women don't ejaculate

"I was hacking away at her g-spot for hours, & she never came once"

PS @ George Darroch – heh – "mainstream"

PS @ George Darroch – heh – "mainstream"

It's surprising how quickly things go from pornography to popular culture. I know this... ummm... from reading Ariel Levy... honest.

And some world maps exclude New Zealand, go figure.

To be fair, New Zealand seldom brings billions of women to orgasm.

We do what we can...

A NZ devoted solely to pleasure? That's an idea.

I get the feeling from comments that I'm the only one out here feeling very disturbed by the idea of porn using child like actors.

Dinah, an eighteen year old can be made to look under-age, but "child-like"? How would you make an eighteen year old look like an eight?

You mean.., exactly like they do with male ejaculation?

You mean to say that male ejaculation is a myth too? Call the censors!!

Unfortunately, one of the problems is that much of this commercial pornography features women who aren't ejaculating, but are instead using a bag filled with liquid to create the appearance of ejaculation.

Do you shout this out when it's on as well? "That's not real! She's bagged that up beforehand!?

Depicting it is definitely illegal. Doing it is definitely not.

It's still okay to watch it live, though, right? ;)

I feel creeped out by the idea that someone would make a porn (or not) movie using women who look like pre-pubescent girls, presumably to appeal to the market for?

But making money off innocent (presumption of such until proven) peoples misery and calling it entertainment turned my?

Speaking as someone who has seen both, I don't think they're that easy?

if the chick is thrashing around, making those ridiculous porno pleasure-shrieks, and doing the o-face, then yeah, maybe it could be confusing.

I read somewhere (if I remember I'll post the link), that the internet is democratising porn. People are posting their own content onto the web, and suddenly porn?

Pina colada mix, isn't it?

What a waste! Now there's the real scandal.

You'll have to listen for a minute or so to "get it"

I've definitely met eighteen year olds who could be passed off as 12 or 14 year olds. Maybe not pre-teen though.

That involves an odd definition of "pre-teen".

Not so sure about peeing etc, is that illegal in NZ?

Depicting it is definitely illegal. Doing it is definitely not.

It's?

O stuff – "Selfish Shellfish" has just got stuck in my brain again – the cover of the CD shows possible relevance to thread...

Dinah, an eighteen year old can be made to look under-age, but "child-like"? How would you make an eighteen year old look like an eight year old?

gebetics- diff'rent strokes/ webster.

it is never ok to depict sex with children (or animals, touch my dog and you're a dead man).

?

How could you be satisfied that an image represented someone over 16?

The US has its 2257 regulations that require performers to be over 18 and producers to keep records of proof of age. I presume we have similar rules.

And might not the maker of the image intend it?

I am also unconvinced?

The important issue here is the protection of children.

No question that that's one of the important issues, but there are others too. "Protect that children" does not trump everything, otherwise we should ban cars, dogs, open stovetops, and so on.

I am also unconvinced by your slippery slope argument?

http://www.fatcat-fishface.com/music/fatcatmymother.mp3

You'll have to listen for a minute or so to "get it"

Now I know what they mean when they suggest the use of the "Parental Lockout System"

The question of whether this is harmless fantasy or fuelling desires that would be?

My concern is more for the performers than the act performed.

But we are only talking about adults. You don't think I'm defending actual child pornography, I hope.

Well, if anybody has a problem in this direction then maybe they need one of these handy iPhone Apps like "iRecover ? Pornography Addiction Recovery"

I have a new favourite sentence: "I made a covenant with my eyes".

if we allow pornography where adults who look underage perform as teenagers, there is always the danger that real underage people will be employed in those roles.

I fail to see how one follows from the other. It seems to me that using 18 yr olds + and making them?

I'm sure there must be cases of these numerous people we read about being arrested for possession of child porn who would never think of engaging in such an act. If they could be steered towards a more morally acceptable avenue then it could only be a positive.

Woah there!?

People who have fantasies about sex with children need psychiatric treatment, not fulfillment.

Wow. I suggest we round up all consenting adults who roleplay Catholic schoolgirl scenarios – clearly these people must be stopped.

I am a fisher. I kill what I catch asap. There are fishing programmes?

Please also note that I have not said that filming scenarios with adult actors has a straightforwardly damaging, causative effect. I said merely that?

the open display of *considerable* cruelty to animals in a huge number of on-screen programmes?

It's worse than that. Every day and every night we are subjected to World War 2 on National Geographic, The History Channel and others.
Won't somebody think of the Hebrews?.

Child pornography where teenagers (played by actors over 18) are depicted having sex is all about the thrill of watching teenagers having sex. Nothing else. That's why I find it morally unacceptable

Why morally unacceptable? Furthermore why morally unacceptable if they were under 18?

Every day and every night we are subjected to World War 2 on National Geographic, The History Channel and others.

I like to stroll into the breakroom at work (which has a telly and a sky subscription), and ask if there's any warporn on worth watching.

Although lately they've taken?

I mean really, choosing to highlight the final, terrifying moments?

If even one person who watches child porn then escalates into action as a result of watching it (and I guess that's the most difficult thing to assess), isn't that one too many?

I have to admit, I've been at a mate's place and spent an evening playing Gran Turismo.?

I'd rage against it becoming the norm.

I'd agree with you there, but I'd also point out that its way too late.
Don Henley's Dirty Laundry was released in 1982. "Its interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry"

The photo spread on the front of the sports section in today's SST was closer to snuff imagery than I was prepared for [...] final, terrifying moments leading to anybody's death

The sports section, you say? What story was that?

The photo spread on the front of the sports section in today's SST was closer to snuff imagery than I was prepared for, and I'd rage against it becoming the norm. It made my darling cry and me feel sick...

I'm guessing you missed 3news last night, then. I didn't,?

The photo spread on the front of the sports section in today's SST

Now you have made me go and dig the SST out of the recycling bin (I hadn't read the sporting section as there would have been no news of the Chiefs Super 14 game in Durban).
Still,?

Aue.

The recent dog massacre upset me so much I couldn't bear to read anything more than?

This is a different story though. No children (or animals) were injured, because there were none there to start with. It's animation. Would this be illegal here?

I think it would, even though it's manga, because the books were "depicting illustrations of child sex and bestiality."

The Films, Videos, and?

To make a comparison; I saw the execution of Saddam Hussein. I would argue I was not complicit in the execution of Saddam Hussein regardless of the fact that I willingly clicked on the link.

The comparison isn't valid. Saddam Hussien wasn't stolen from his home or sold by his?

Child porn is a market, and yet in both instances the profit is peripheral to the atrocity. As I understand it Kyle, a lot of child porn?

A valid comparison would?

Heh. Classic.

Cool, I'll try to find it, I'm reminded of a childhood experience, when I was seven, my second best friend (who shall remain nameless), was lying on his bed, and started rubbing himself against it, he said try this , it's?

if we'd filmed it, it would have constituted child porn. but at that age we were in a legislative nowhere land.

You know perfectly well that it's not how child porn is produced, come on.

You know perfectly well that it's not how child porn is produced, come on.

In my defence your honour, actually I don't. My point wasn't so much about childporn, it was along the lines of my 'brave new world' spiel about education in the culled post. In that I had?

Steve B – I suspect there is a deep – not ancestral?

Not sure if that extends to encouraging children to record themselves and share. But even if it did, I'm pretty sure that a child so minded wouldn't be prosecuted for child porn, no?

You haven't been paying attention to the news from the States lately then. There have been several?

With luck you meet a member of the opposite sex and muddle through the whole mess of marriage and children and schools and jobs and Society calls this Normal and nobody is rude.

Paging Mr Huxley, call for Mr Aldous Huxley on line 1 – something about a Brave New?

pretending that prepubescent boys and girls don't have a sexuality, I'm right with you

yeah. guess i'll have to break my long hiatus from reading books and actually actually check it out.

Not only are children unlikely to comprehend the law but it goes totally against earlier experience.

I don't?

Too much whiskey, too early brings out vitriol.

I'd hope NZ is a bit more enlightened, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like it happen in the 51st state across the Tasman there.

Seven year olds? I don't think so. Then again, the parents probably would be charged with something.

Too much whiskey, too early brings out vitriol.

Whiskies and other distilled beverages such as cognac and rum are complex beverages containing a vast range of flavouring compounds, of which some 200 to 300 can be easily detected by chemical analysis. The flavouring chemicals include "carbonyl compounds, alcohols, carboxylic acids?

I want to shout from the rooftops to proclaim a triumph of online journalism. But I can't. I want to show you all a prize-winning piece of video. But I'm banned from doing so; the threat of an $11,000 fine hangs over me?

But encouraged by a range of forces, its telecoms ministry is proposing an internet code that threatens to ban all content that is indecent, or upsets public order.

You can imagine how that could?

Similarly, Indonesia is a relatively liberal democracy and country with the freest press in its region.

I'm not sure about its press, but Indonesia has some human rights issues that wave 'not that liberal a democracy' flags for me.

I'm not sure about its press, but Indonesia has some human rights issues that wave 'not that liberal a democracy' flags for me.

The West Papua situation is complicated – I just submitted a thesis on how the province is represented, particularly focused on human rights issues. There's poverty, health?

Under what circumstances should it be illegal to look at a picture of something it is legal to do?

The legality of doing it is utterly irrelevant.

Watching and disseminating kiddie porn is illegal because of the (alleged) effects it has on the viewers. "Fake" kiddie porn where no real?

The legality of doing it is utterly irrelevant.

Oddly, when I asked this question, child pornography wasn't my focus. That's why I asked this question. My own personal concern is more related to consensual BDSM material, which runs into problems with different areas of the "offensive material" definition.

Is it?

Watching and disseminating kiddie porn is illegal because of the (alleged) effects it has on the viewers

No it is not. It is illegal because it is considered objectionable.

Effects that aren't "alleged" are those of the people convicted for owning things like the Simpsons cartoons, or teenagers convicted for taking?

Have any of these cases occurred in New Zealand? I think not.

No, they haven't, but there's nothing to stop them happening here. We couldn't link to some of the art here (for 'it's not actually that, it's this' purposes) because that would leave us open to prosecution. Our laws?

1. quote someone's previous comment.
2. write some straw-man argument directly below.
3. get pulled up on this little piece of bullshit.
4. deny any wrongdoing followed by more straw-man bullshit!

ta-dah!

It's not you, it's her.

She'll be back soon, with her head screwed on firmly, and optimal levels of baddassed-ness.?

(Shut up, it is so a word, and one that perfectly describes Ms Hart.)

You get no argument there.

baddassed-ness
(Shut up, it is so a word, and one that perfectly describes Ms Hart.)

I thought badass mostly came with tinges of uncooperativeness and overly aggressiveness which I wouldn't have laid at Emma's door – so I'm guessing we are going for the secondary
meaning of formidable and excellent...?

though I am wondering if the "double-d" version

Darn freaking tooting.