Omg, in Wikipedia, it says its legal, not looked down upon, it says that pictures can contain nude children as long as they do not depict children in sexual activites!! IS THIS TRUE?
2007-04-15 13:03:09 · 16 answers · asked by Bdttn2 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
By the way......if true, ITS SICK
2007-04-15 13:03:43 · update #1
Adam91, i was reading up on MJ case and ran upon it.
2007-04-15 13:11:55 · update #2
kkkjew, let me asure you that im not!
btw, im 16 and i was p***ed when i read it, due to me having younger sister.
2007-04-15 13:16:12 · update #3
Jojo, it reads as it is.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_molestation_allegations_against_Michael_Jackson
under Allegations "later that year...."
2007-04-15 13:19:37 · update #4
Well, I skimmed the page and I'm not quite sure what they mean by 'erotica'. If they are referring to kids modeling underwear, nightgowns, etc. for sales purposes, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not 'erotic' to us, only to pedophiles. I've seen tons of photography books with photos of nude kids and it's NOT meant to be erotic. There's nothing wrong with a naked kid just like there's nothing wrong with a picture of a naked adult. It all depends on the pose and what they are trying to say. But what I do not understand is WHY they are actually calling it 'Child modeling (erotic)'. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?? Isn't that in itself a form of child pornography?? If they are in an 'erotic' pose purposely to excite some old man than it should be illegal!! Blaghghhghgh.
*Also, you never know who edited that page. It could have been a pedophile...
2007-04-15 13:11:32 · answer #1 · answered by Pico 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ask your attorney about Virginia's civil forfeiture laws. I live in California, and here, it is up to the whims of the prosecutor whether media containing child erotica should be returned or confiscated. Even then, the criminal defendant, now a civil plaintiff, can sue in civil court to get his stuff back, and probably win. A twist on the OJ Simpson case... LOL.
2016-05-21 00:18:55 · answer #2 · answered by alida 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some television networks and other medias exploit the fact that certain countries (mainly African) are much hotter than others and leaving it in the world's mind that it's necessary for these people to walk around nude. This in turn opens the door to exploit the nudity of youngsters (mainly the pre-teen girls) and expose them on a worldwide level under the guise of educational television. Education or erotica?
2007-04-15 14:31:09 · answer #3 · answered by Grrr! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as it's not a sick, sexual picture, then whats the problem?
Theres been countless cases of families taking pictures of their kids in the bath and being arrested (and always later released with out charge) on child porn accusations.
I dont agree with pedo's by the way, they should be locked away with no food.
Smiling sam, you're such a homophobe, i've bet you get feelings for men all the time but try to deny it. Your comment is classic closet gay. Be a man and admit you're really gay!
2007-04-15 13:14:49 · answer #4 · answered by jojo5050 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nudity is not erotica, per se, so yes of course you can have pictures of nude children without them being illegal or indecent. The Chickyn is right...
2007-04-15 13:06:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In some countries they can have child porn. Not in America. Try not to listen to Wikipedia too much. So why were you searching for it? Naked photos are okay unless theyre in sexual activites like you said.
2007-04-15 13:07:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The words eroticism and children do not even belong in the same sentence, excepting only sentences like this.
2007-04-15 13:08:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia has been known to support child predators, but nude does not equal sexual necessarily. "Chickyn" is right.
2007-04-15 13:06:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A picture of my toddler in the bathtub is not pornography.
Naked does not equal pornographic.
It is the INTENT that makes it erotica.
If the intent is to stimulate, it is erotica.
If you are stimulated by images clearly not meant to stimulate, then the problem lies with you, not the imagery.
.
2007-04-15 13:06:31 · answer #9 · answered by Chickyn in a Handbasket 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋
a picture of a nude child is sick????? man, sick is whoever sees sickness on a pic of a nude child, dont you think so???
2007-04-15 13:13:42 · answer #10 · answered by alberto k 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋