Why is teen pornography referred to as "child pornograpy"?

Question

let's face it....by 15 or 16 most females are no longer "children". they are well on their way through puberty, and may in fact have already reached their sexually mature state. once a woman has her first period, after all, she is capable of giving birth. in many countries around the world (and in fact, in many US states), a woman can get married, consent to sex, and have children at age 15 or 16 (or even younger). So why is it that we call pornography of anyone under 18 "child" pornography.

To me, "children" are something very different than teenagers.
Those who like to see actual child pornography are very sick, because children (it depends on the maturity of the individual in question, but typically I would define children as those under 14 or 15) are not yet sexually mature. Pedophilia is the attraction to PRE-pubescent children. PRE-pubescent. And yet law enforcement and the media seem to brand any one who looks at 15 or 16 year old pornorgaphy as a "pedophile". This is not true

I'm not saying that pornography of 15 or 16 year olds is necessarily right or should be legalized. But I think it should be treated differently than pornography of younger children. I think looking at nude images of sexually developed teenagers should be treated as a much less severe crime.

A 19 year old looking at nude images of a 16 year old is a far less crime than a 50 year old looking at nude images of a 12 year old.

Answer 1

Look, it's OBVIOUS you love the teen porn...let's just be honest. The whole purpose of your rant is to rationalize it, right? And yes, technically, it's not pedophilia. But are you saying that 14 and 15 year olds should be able to be in porn, dance in strip clubs, and "consent" to sex with 40 year old adults? They may not be children, but they are not adults, either. Their brains (the part that contributes to reasoning, impulse control, etc.) will not fully develop until they reach their late teens, early twenties. Studies have shown time and again that teens are not mentally or emotionally capable of handling sex, let alone sexual objectification. If it is the term pedophilia itself that you object to...okay...but the point really seems moot since it is still wrong. So, who cares what term is used? What exactly are you trying to argue here?

Answer 2

Don't know. My religion teaches that children skip teenage years and are adults. In my religion most women get married at the age of 14. As soon as a girl gets her first menstrual cycle she is no longer a child but an adult because she is able to carry children and get married. The same thing with boys. As soon as they hit puberty they are seen as adults as well. So if a 10 year old has her first menstrual cycle she is now a woman.By the way in the USA you can't get married at 16 without a parent's consent. But yes I agree it should be a lesser crime for a 19 year old to look at a 13 or 14 year old girl.

Answer 3

Porn is quite different to walking around naked, and if you're spurting about maturity I would have thought you'd be able to realise this. The key fact is that nakedness is just that - nude skin. There's nothing sexual about nude skin. Porn on the other hand is about sex. Why is it so bad for children to witness sex? It is very common for young children who have witnessed sexual behaviour to try and re-enact what they've seen in all innocence, which turns innocent children into victims and 'predators'. There are many cases of young children being fondled or worse by other young children and the root cause being the child doing the act has seen this either on television or in the flesh and is unaware of the morality aspect and simply tries to recreate what they saw. As for children past the age of puberty - we all know that this is the age where hormones go wild and it is the job of the parents and of society as a whole to try and protect kids from their own sexuality until they are old enough and responsible enough to fully understand what an adult decision sex is. And adding porn viewing to the mix does not achieve this. On another level, sex between two people is traditionally a very private thing. Of course there are those out there who don't see it this way, and who wish to partake (either by being a part of or viewing) in pornography. But this is very much adult behaviour, and not something which *innocent* children should be party to. On the other hand I'm with you on the violence aspect. Are you the same person who has posted a number of questions in the past regarding violent movies vs. sexual movies? If so, you should by now have seen from most of your answers that most parents don't allow or agree with their children watching violence. It is very possible to be against both, but you seem to be under the impression that it's either/or. I'm sorry you have been negatively affected by your parents' decision to allow you to view violence at a young age, but don't by any means take this to mean that all parents follow suit.

Answer 4

Unless they change the legal age to reflect your opinion they are still children until they reach 18 and yes it is sick even for a 19 year old to be looking at those images,because they distort the truth. The way the photos are done is not what happens with most girls and if a 19 year old is looking for those things and expects that all woman or girls are that he will be very disappointed in reality. I caught my 15 year old son looking at porn, two women together and had to explain he had better not expect that all women would do this as it is not the norm. We need to teach these men that most porn is fantasy not reality.

Answer 5

15-16 year olds are still children. If I found some sick person like you looking at nude images of CHILDREN under the age of 18. I would kick the living fu ck out of you an put you in the ground.

Answer 6

Anyone under the age of eighteen is a child legally, regardless of attractiveness or sexual experience. So kiddie porn term still applies. Besides, I really don't think that 15-17 year olds are ready to have sex, much less perform in front of a camera!

Answer 7

When somone is under the age of 18, their paents or gardions are fully responsible for their health and well being. this makes them a "vulnarable" person. Please ask yourself if you would want a 19 year old looking at nude pics your 16 year old. beleive me you will understand why "teens" are really just older children in adult bodies when you become the parent of one.

Answer 8

Many females have their first period at 12/13 years old, some even at 11, so are you trying to saying that they are already women and can make decisions competently by themselves just because they can give birth? And most of us think of an adult as at least 18 years and above. At 13 years old a girl can make silly decisions like sell herself on the net to make some money to buy some designer good and it does happen it's not uncommon. This type of law is to prevent pedophiles and sickos from taking advantage of this, and to prevent harm to the girl herself as she is too immature to make a decision like that. That is why there are minimum age laws imposed.

And I believe for NORMAL person, a pic on a porno site of a 15 year old is very disturbing.

So you are young and you love watching young girls naked on the net. That does not make a difference, there are 18 year old perverts and there are 40 year old perverts, a 17 year old rapist and a 50 year old rapist - what difference does it make? Why do you want to watch a 15 year old naked anyway, an 18 year old isn't much of a difference plus it's LEGAL. You want pornsites of 15 year old girls to be treated differently..HOW? Make it partially legal? That they can be naked, just not in suggestive poses?

Ok so technically you like watching young girls, you aren't a pedophile since they are not really children. But it is also considered pervertic by the masses, seeing how all of us still see them as children. Do you really want a 15 year old girl taking off her clothes in front of dirty men and them throwing dollar bills at her?

I think you need to stop surfing porn of young girls, and get out of the house pronto before you become one of those "creepy" people, unless you are already one. It will be a slippery slope: soon you start thinking "a 13 year old isn't that young it's close to 15..." and you know what happens. I don't get what you are trying to argue, that you want us to look at people like you who watch young girls on the net differently? I don't think it's going to happen seeing how there are still fathers on the planet, fathers who feel ill at thinking other girls like his baby are stripping for the pleasure of sick people.

Answer 9

Nudity is not pornography. It's perfectly legal to take pictures of people of any age with their clothes off if all they're doing is just standing there or something. It's legal to possess such pictures or to publish them. It becomes pornography when they are engaged in sex acts.

What gets called a sex offense is political. Adultery is widespread and the laws prohibiting it are never enforced in most countries. In fact most people think it's legal. As a practical matter it is. Looking at certain types of pictures is an activity engaged in by a small minority that adulterers look down their righteous noses at.

Answer 10

John B. Listen up, If you have nude pictues of little children in your collection you will be in big trouble if they are found.
You better look into and reread the laws you are quoting.

Why would anybody want them type photos anyway is beyond me.