Porn vs. Art

[Ron_Tomkins]

Look, I'm enjoying this discussion for the most part, but now that roughly 5 people have tried to falsely describe my argument like that, I'm starting to get a little annoyed.

I am in NO WAY saying that ANY nude child photo is harmful or pornographic. I'm saying that there are some that are and some that aren't,

Stop right there. There's your mistake.

You're saying that there are some nude child photos that are harmful?

Is that what you're saying?
Harmful to who? (Keep in mind, we're talking about nude child photos. Not child pornography)

Or maybe you wanna redefine your argument and address Child Pornography (which involves sexual acts and sometimes serious physical abuse) instead of Nude Child Photos?

You need to understand there's a very drastic difference between the two.

The reason you've been "misunderstood", the reason your argument has been "fasely described" is because you carelessly exchange one thing for the other and you use them both as if they were the same.

I cannot stress this enough: You need to understand the difference between the two. Sorry if it sounds pedant or condescending.

 

[not daSkeptic]

One can study the effects of children who have been photographed nude.

Of children who have been photographed nude or of photographing children nude?

 

[JFrankA]

Look, I'm enjoying this discussion for the most part, but now that roughly 5 people have tried to falsely describe my argument like that, I'm starting to get a little annoyed.

I am in NO WAY saying that ANY nude child photo is harmful or pornographic. I'm saying that there are some that are and some that aren't, but I (and seemingly everyone else--only you have even tried) cannot make that distinction with enough consistent accuracy to justify the risk to the children involved.

How can I say that any more clearly?

You are saying it clearly but your risk argument doesn't hold water.

Yes, I fully recognize that. My argument is that the loss experienced by artists because they cannot use living, naked kids in their art (they can still draw pictures of naked kids, make sculptures...whatever, just no actual kids used in the production) is insignificant compared to protecting children.

But show your math here: Let's say you draw that line EXCEPTIONALLY well and 90% of kids who model nude aren't harmed, 7% are mildly harmed, and 3% are seriously harmed. Are you alright with that?

Well, I can make up figures too: The line for drinking alcohol is drawn, so 80% of children don't drink it, 7% get their hands on it and drink it anyway, and the rest get harmed by adults who have drank too much.

Are you alright with alcohol being legal?

I don't mean this flippantly, this is the basis of my argument. Is the art product so important to accept that level of abuse? And that's if we can do it at a success rate that far exceeds almost all endeavors of mankind.

You are crying out "Think of the children" along with the falacy of potential harm even if there are clear efforts to avoid harm in the first place.

My son has several air rifles and guns. There's potiential harm in that yet they are legal for him to own and use.

Do you see the fallacy? Your argument is based upon something that you don't like, so you feel that everyone should agree and stay away from it.

I'm sorry, you are making people guilty until proven innocent.

There are certain things we allow a parent to do, certain things we don't.

For example, a parent cannot make their child work in a factory. I'm arguing that they should not be allowed to make a decision about a child displaying their nude body in public on behalf of the child.

You may disagree, but again, it is a concept with much legal history.

Again, the government knows best.

What about child actors who have never appeared nude? Corey Haim just died. He was a child actor. Dana Plato, Todd Bridges, Lindsey Lohan these actors never appeared nude as a child and yet they had harm come to them.

So the potential for non-nude child actors is established. Shall we tell parents that they cannot let the children preform in any type of production?

 

[TraneWreck]

Please go back and read your own argument, and then read my reply to your argument. I clearly outlined exactly what you need to provide to support your argument. If you can't provide said evidence, then we all get to blow off your assertion.

I didn't realize you had so much power.

It is not my job to convince you that your argument is wrong. It is your job to convince me (and the others in this thread) that your argument is right.

So far, your argument is "I can't tell the difference between X and Y, and X is bad, therefore Y is bad too, and we should ban Y" -- You are arguing from ignorance, using insufficient sample sizes, comparing apples to oranges, applying slippery slopes where they don't belong, using genetic fallacies, appealing to emotion, and then on top of all that failing to meet your own burden of proof.

And yet again, the argument on the other side is not made on the merits, simply that they don't have the burden, so no worries.

It is a positive claim to assert that no harm comes from said activities. Studies could be cited, evidence could be defended, but it's much easier to assume it's all cool.

The practical problem is that it's almost impossible to find studies about kids that model nude and haven't been abused because such a massive percentage of them have been abused.

You can say that's my fault for failing to isolate the specific issue, but again, the opposing position is also a positive claim.

You've provided 0 evidence to actually support your claim that the mere action of a child being nude in a picture, or a painting, or a movie, when that artistic media is NOT pornographic, is harmful to that child. 0. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

I enjoyed this part. What are we defining as pornographic and what's cool? Or are we back to the question that started all of this.

How, pray tell, is anyone supposed to isolate a factor that has no definition? Since you have no evidence to support the claim that non-pornographic modeling isn't harmful (a positive claim--no negative proving here), we seem to stand face to face with no study to isolate the central issue.

Instead, you've offered up studies that have no relevance to that, as they are about child pornography, not "situations with good intentions".

So, do you actually have some evidence to back up your claims, or not? If you do, post it. If not, let me know now, so I can ignore you already. Thanks.

You've slanted this argument so far in your favor by including "situations with good intentions." How is a study supposed to deal with that? How many such models exist in the United States?

So fine, there's a factual issue in terms of isolating benevolate utilizers of nude children, but the default position is not "then it's cool." That argument has to be factually established as well.

 

[TraneWreck]

Stop right there. There's your mistake.

You're saying that there are some nude child photos that are harmful?

Is that what you're saying?
Harmful to who? (Keep in mind, we're talking about nude child photos. Not child pornography)

Look, you've jumped in late, so I don't expect you to read everythig that came before, but the very issue at hand is the inability to consistently and accurately distinguish those two things.

Or maybe you wanna redefine your argument and address Child Pornography (which involves sexual acts and sometimes serious physical abuse) instead of Nude Child Photos?

You need to understand there's a very drastic difference between the two.

No, there really isn't. Obviously if you take extreme examples of actual recorded physical abuse, then you're case won't be tough to make.

Google the COPINE scale.

The reason you've been "misunderstood", the reason your argument has been "fasely described" is because you carelessly exchange one thing for the other and you use them both as if they were the same.

I cannot stress this enough: You need to understand the difference between the two. Sorry if it sounds pedant or condescending.

No, you just sound like your ignoring all the tough cases.

 

[TraneWreck]

You are saying it clearly but your risk argument doesn't hold water.

That may or may not be true, but it certainly isn't relevant to use a completely wrong assessment of my position.

Well, I can make up figures too: The line for drinking alcohol is drawn, so 80% of children don't drink it, 7% get their hands on it and drink it anyway, and the rest get harmed by adults who have drank too much.

Are you alright with alcohol being legal?

Well, funny way of avoiding the question. Notice that however I choose to answer that question, it has no bearing on your stance on acceptible risk.

You've also neglected amounts...etc. If it turned out that 20% of people who drink any amount of alcohol abuse their children, I'd either outlaw alcohol or take the children away from anyone who had a drink ever.

But obviously the situation is much more complicated.

You are crying out "Think of the children" along with the falacy of potential harm even if there are clear efforts to avoid harm in the first place.

My son has several air rifles and guns. There's potiential harm in that yet they are legal for him to own and use.

Do you see the fallacy? Your argument is based upon something that you don't like, so you feel that everyone should agree and stay away from it.

I'm sorry, you are making people guilty until proven innocent.

This is just not true. Once again, assuming a law was passed that outlawed the use of naked kids in art, the same legal protections would apply to those cases as all others.

I can only assume you think I'm accusing all artists using naked kids of being pornographers, I'm not. I'm proposing a law that doesn't even deal with a porn/art distinction, just a very simple factual situation.

Again, the government knows best.

What about child actors who have never appeared nude? Corey Haim just died. He was a child actor. Dana Plato, Todd Bridges, Lindsey Lohan these actors never appeared nude as a child and yet they had harm come to them.

So the potential for non-nude child actors is established. Shall we tell parents that they cannot let the children preform in any type of production?

Well, we could do some studies. Depending on how the numbers come back and how causality works out there might be an argument to be made.

If it turned out that regardless of all other factors any child who appears in a sit-com has a 50% chance of becoming a junkie, you wouldn't want to either ban child actors or seriously alter the current system?

 

[tesscaline]

And yet again, the argument on the other side is not made on the merits, simply that they don't have the burden, so no worries.

It is a positive claim to assert that no harm comes from said activities. Studies could be cited, evidence could be defended, but it's much easier to assume it's all cool.

The practical problem is that it's almost impossible to find studies about kids that model nude and haven't been abused because such a massive percentage of them have been abused.

You can say that's my fault for failing to isolate the specific issue, but again, the opposing position is also a positive claim.

You made a claim. I have not made a claim. I have not opposed your claim. I have asked you to back up your claim. Which you now claim is impossible to do. So what, exactly, is your claim based upon?

I enjoyed this part. What are we defining as pornographic and what's cool? Or are we back to the question that started all of this.

You seem to be conflating "child pornography" with any nude portrayal of a child. Your argument is failing in part because of that conflation. It's not my fault you can't seem to define your own terms consistently.

How, pray tell, is anyone supposed to isolate a factor that has no definition? Since you have no evidence to support the claim that non-pornographic modeling isn't harmful (a positive claim--no negative proving here), we seem to stand face to face with no study to isolate the central issue.

You've slanted this argument so far in your favor by including "situations with good intentions." How is a study supposed to deal with that? How many such models exist in the United States?

So fine, there's a factual issue in terms of isolating benevolate utilizers of nude children, but the default position is not "then it's cool." That argument has to be factually established as well.

I have not slanted the argument in my favor at all. You did that.

I'm simply arguing 2 things:

1) The potential damage caused by using naked kids, even with good intentions, is being underestimated.

Bolding mine.

Yes, the argument has to be factually established -- something you have failed to do, and are now making lame excuses about.

Do you have any actual evidence to support your own argument? This is a yes or no question.

 

[JFrankA]

That may or may not be true, but it certainly isn't relevant to use a completely wrong assessment of my position.

Yes, it does. There's risk of potential harm for a child in a lot of things: from nude photography to riding in a car. If an artist, child and parents are okay with the production of the child being nude, and it's done without the child in a sexual situation, why is that more riskier than a child riding in a car or owning an air soft rifle?

Well, funny way of avoiding the question. Notice that however I choose to answer that question, it has no bearing on your stance on acceptible risk.

I am not avoiding the question, I'm showing you the fallacy of yours.

You've also neglected amounts...etc. If it turned out that 20% of people who drink any amount of alcohol abuse their children, I'd either outlaw alcohol or take the children away from anyone who had a drink ever.

So there's an acceptable potential risk involved. For you, what are the numbers? Would it be different with alcohol than with legitimate nude child photography? Or a child owning a BB gun? If the numbers are different why?

But obviously the situation is much more complicated.

But it's simple with legitimate nude child photography? You yourself said that determining legitimate nude child photography was too complicated for you to draw the line and that's why it should "just be avoided". Why is alcohol more complicated than it should "just be avoided"?

This is just not true. Once again, assuming a law was passed that outlawed the use of naked kids in art, the same legal protections would apply to those cases as all others.

But by your own stance, ANY photo of a child that is naked and not taken by a relative is guilty of potential harm.

That is the result of your stance.

I can only assume you think I'm accusing all artists using naked kids of being pornographers, I'm not. I'm proposing a law that doesn't even deal with a porn/art distinction, just a very simple factual situation.

Again, I am not accusing you of calling all photographers of naked children pornographers, but I am saying that since you feel that it should be avoided all together, it makes them guilty period.

You have, essentailly taken away the rights of a) an artist to defend themselves and b) the freedom to what art they choose to do c) the parents to make decisions for their own children and d) a child to become something they may eventually choose to be.

Well, we could do some studies. Depending on how the numbers come back and how causality works out there might be an argument to be made.

If it turned out that regardless of all other factors any child who appears in a sit-com has a 50% chance of becoming a junkie, you wouldn't want to either ban child actors or seriously alter the current system?

Again. "Think of the children."

My answer to the question to ban it is no. Emphatically.

My answer to the question to alter it, then I want specifics before I said yes or no.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I'm here a bit late, but I'd like to point something. It seems that the basic debate going on here is over, in large part, whether or not nude photos of children can be art (an oversimplification, I know, but bear with it for a moment). Now, in my opinion, this question is irrelevant to the actual issue.

Art is, obviously, a very difficult to define term, but most definitions are very broad. Andy Warhol showed that a urinal can be art. So can a can of soup, an empty room, a drawing or a photograph of a naked child, or a video of a man killing a cat.

That does not, in itself, make them acceptable.

Whether or not a photo is art is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should be banned or it's creator prosecuted. What matters is whether it's harmful.

Now, child pornography is basically outlawed for two reasons: firstly, children are usually harmed in it's making, and secondly, it is believed to promote behaviour harmful to children. The second reason is why even drawings of children engaged in sexual acts are illegal in many countries.

So in deciding whether or not a photo is illegal (or should be), one should first consider whether it depicts children in a sexual manner; that is to say, has potential for promoting paedophilic tendencies and child abuse. If so, the punishment should depend on whether or not this was an intentional effect, but the photo should be made unavailable in any case.

Secondly, and I consider this more important, one should consider whether children were harmed or treated in a potentially harmful manner when taking the photo. Now, I believe it isn't a bad idea to at least investigate possible child abuse when naked photos are involved, but prosecuting on no other grounds than a fairly innocent-looking photo seems both costly and harmful to the (quite often innocent) photographer.

In either case, whether or not the photo is artistic doesn't really matter at all. "Artistic liberty" doesn't mean exemption from laws.

 

[TraneWreck]

You made a claim. I have not made a claim. I have not opposed your claim. I have asked you to back up your claim. Which you now claim is impossible to do. So what, exactly, is your claim based upon?

It's based on a few things:
1) Child porn does incredible damage to children throughout the world.
2) It does so for reasons that are not solely limited to physical abuse.
3) We cannot distinguish pornography from art, or harmful from unharmful situations to a degree reliable enough to justify the risk (if anyone can do so, I instantly join their side)
4) The harm to society from the prohibition against using live naked kids in art, no art with naked kids, is minor compared to the damage caused to children if we get the balancing act wrong.
6) There's no reason to think that even a really well defined, tightly drawn line (say 95% accuracy), will justify the harm incurred by those we fail.

I'm legitimately curious what people would accept as a success rate.

You seem to be conflating "child pornography" with any nude portrayal of a child. Your argument is failing in part because of that conflation. It's not my fault you can't seem to define your own terms consistently.

Then explain how to separate the two.

Yes, the argument has to be factually established -- something you have failed to do, and are now making lame excuses about.

Do you have any actual evidence to support your own argument? This is a yes or not question.

Sure, fair enough. Having spent some more time trying to research this (now my google search window is filled with a massive number of permutations of "child pornography" "abuse victim" and assorted other unpleasant sounding things--don't send the authorities my way until I delete all that) I am willing to concede that I cannot currently establish a factual case to prove that even well-meaning photographers of nude children can cause them damage.

It is important to reiterate, however, that the reason the data hasn't isolated those cases is because such a huge number of those cases also involve abuse.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Andy Warhol showed that a urinal can be art.

Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain' (1917) - but it's only art, and you'd probably mostly get away round here with sticking Warhol's name on anything edgy (I'd recommend 'Monet' for anything chocolate-boxy and 'Rembrandt' for big oils of long-dead worthies).

 

[brodski]

I am willing to concede that I cannot currently establish a factual case to prove that even well-meaning photographers of nude children can cause them damage.

It is important to reiterate, however, that the reason the data hasn't isolated those cases is because such a huge number of those cases also involve abuse.

Can you substantiate your new claim that a huge number of the cases of well meaning (i.e. not abusive) photographers taking pictures of kids in the nude also involved abuse?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain' (1917) - but it's only art, and you'd probably mostly get away round here with sticking Warhol's name on anything edgy (I'd recommend 'Monet' for anything chocolate-boxy and 'Rembrandt' for big oils of long-dead worthies).

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying.

 

[Brian-M]

unless you want to stretch credibility to claiming that he applied skill in recognising the photographic merit of a chance circumstance

What chance circumstance? I can't be 100% sure, but that photograph is most likely the result of deciding to produce a photograph of the Sydney Harbour Bridge with a certain "feel" to it, followed by days of searching out possible locations from which to take the picture, exercising skill in judging the possible aesthetic outcome of taking the picture at each location from different angles at various times of day, and returning to those sites in various weather conditions. If this is the case, then that photograph is not a product of "chance circumstance", but of deliberate planning and exercising of practiced judgment and skill.

 

[JFrankA]

It's based on a few things:
1) Child porn does incredible damage to children throughout the world.
2) It does so for reasons that are not solely limited to physical abuse.

These two points I completely agree with you.

3) We cannot distinguish pornography from art, or harmful from unharmful situations to a degree reliable enough to justify the risk (if anyone can do so, I instantly join their side)

I've started to give guidelines. It's almost exactly the guidelines that is used for adult nude models. What else do you need?

4) The harm to society from the prohibition against using live naked kids in art, no art with naked kids, is minor compared to the damage caused to children if we get the balancing act wrong.

This I completely disagree with you. You don't even know the actual potential risk of a child in a legitimate nude photo. How can you actually say this statement? I say it's an emotional bias.

6) There's no reason to think that even a really well defined, tightly drawn line (say 95% accuracy), will justify the harm incurred by those we fail.

Again, we have "really well defined, tightly drawn lines (say 95% accuracy)" for things like alcohol, BB guns, car rides, smoking, etc, and yet harm comes to children with those things as well. Tell me what's the difference.

I'm legitimately curious what people would accept as a success rate.

You haven't answered my question: Why is the success rate fine for alcohol different than for legitimate nude photography?

This "success rate" is bull. There's no such thing, otherwise EVERYTHING would be measured as such. And in fact, in law, it is really not. In the US, the idea is to determine that the rights of an individual are protected so long as those rights of that individual does not interfere another person's rights. If there is an artist, who is all consciousness, is concerned with a child's well being and honors the child's and the parent's wishes, with no sexual contact at all going on, wants to make a statement using a nude child, it is their right to create the production.

If there is harm caused later, that would be determined on a case by case basis.

Then explain how to separate the two.

I have but it's not good enough for you. You are looking for the impossible: 100% line. Sorry, life doesn't work like that.

Sure, fair enough. Having spent some more time trying to research this (now my google search window is filled with a massive number of permutations of "child pornography" "abuse victim" and assorted other unpleasant sounding things--don't send the authorities my way until I delete all that)

I know this is a joke, here, but this is part of my point:

Why should you be afraid of the authorities because you have that in your google history? According to your stance, instead of risking potential harm, you should avoid typing that into google altogether.

I am willing to concede that I cannot currently establish a factual case to prove that even well-meaning photographers of nude children can cause them damage.

It is important to reiterate, however, that the reason the data hasn't isolated those cases is because such a huge number of those cases also involve abuse.

However, I can give one case where it did not cause any damage at all. The kid who was nude in Superman. He seemed to turn out quite well.

...of course, that's just one and anecdotal.

 

[Brian-M]

An adult chooses to pick up a chainsaw and take on the risk. If they negligently leave a chainsaw near a child and that child harms themself, that parent would be guilty of abuse.

A parent or guardian can decide whether or not is is reasonably safe for the child to use the chainsaw. A parent or guardian might decide that the child is old enough and mature enough to use a small chainsaw without injuring themselves, and teach their child how to use it safely. In fact, a lot of parents do exactly that.

For example, here's a picture of a 14 year-old girl using a chainsaw to make art...

(source)​

Deciding on behalf of a child to allow them to participate in the creation of art in the nude is a mental state of intent, beyond mere negligence.

One of your objections to children appearing nude in art mentioned in previous posts is that they can't [legally] consent. But parents and guardians can consent on behalf of the child. It's their responsibility to determine whether or not appearing nude in art will be detrimental to the child.

Sure, there are bad parents out there, but the majority of parents are interested in protecting the well-being of their child. What you're suggesting is to deny parents the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow their child to participate in an activity (appearing nude in art or using chainsaws).

 

[Brian-M]

There are a massive number of things that children are outright banned from doing (contractually obligating themselves, consenting to sex, driving, responsibly consume alcohol...etc.). I am simply arguing that consenting to appear naked in the production of artwork should be one of those.

Young children likely won't understand exactly what they're agreeing to when they sign a contract. Regularly consuming alcohol can cause permanent harm to children, driving caries the risk of death. Sex carries the risk of sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy. That's why there are restrictions against children doing these things.

However, in some places it's traditional to allow children to consume a small amount alcohol in certain situations with parental supervision. Some parents, especially those in rural areas who own large amounts of private land, give their children driving lessons before they're legally allowed to drive. The law tends to turn a blind eye to most cases where two underage persons have sex with each-other. Children can contractually oblige themselves with parental consent.

In all of these cases the rules against them aren't applied absolutely.

In the case of children appearing nude in art, why not permit it if the child is willing and the parent deems it acceptable? There's little chance for harm.

Of course, taking nude pictures of children without parental consent is a different matter.

 

[Brian-M]

Falso analogy: Rape causes ACTUAL harm. That's why it's illegal. There's no doubt that rapes causes both physical and psychological harm to the victim every single time it has taken place. There's no degree of uncertainty or cases where there has been an exception to this.

I'd say there are probably exceptions to this in some cases of statutory rape (as opposed to regular rape).

(Sorry, just being a little pedantic here.)

 

[TraneWreck]

I'll try to get back to those challenges, I'm going to be busy for the next few days, so you'll just have to quell the intense need to read my replies.

I'm trying to gather some studies on the issue, but obviously google is not the end-all, be-all of research and I don't particularly want to put in more effort. But here are some things you guys may find interesting:

1) This is a survey of crime statistics involving pornography/sexual offenses. It deals with a claim I made earlier about the impossibility of isolating JUST the posing naked (victim pornography has the child as the subject, as opposed to situations where pornography is used to seduce or molest children):

"...all juvenile victim pornography incidents included other offenses in addition to illegal pornography; the great majority of them were sexual or violent offenses..."

As to the parents being the people who should decide: "Juvenile victim pornography incidents occurred in various locations but overwhelmingly in private residences and homes, which is also where sexual abuse tends to occur..."

"For juvenile victims whose offender could be identified, 25 percent were members of the offender’s family, 64 percent were acquaintances, and 11 percent were strangers."

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204911.pdf

2) Another big study that reiterates the point that the pure effect of porn cannot be isolated, but discusses other related issues:

"Exposure to pornography is often used as a technique to normalize the practice of prostitution during a pimp's "seasoning" process. Pimps may take photographs of children who are nude in the context of a caring relationship but then threaten to send the images to the child's family or school."

The family and school are just the leverage for blackmail, it could easily say "post on the internet." Is a child who is "nude in the context of a caring relationship" art?

"In one study of adult female prostitutes, 38 percent of the women reported that they had sexually explicit photographs taken of them, while they were children..."

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/child_pornography/PDFs/Klain_etal_2001.pdf

Lot's of sources to dig around in on that one, if anyone cares.

3) Regarding the child's ability to "consent":

"The vast majority of children who appear in child pornography have not been abducted or physically forced to participate. In most cases they know the producer—it may even be their father—and are manipulated into taking part by more subtle means."

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/child_pornography/2

4) "Little research exists on how exposure to and participation in pornography affect children, although it is apparent that such experiences often produce feelings of betrayal, guilt, worthlessness, and rage."

Pierce, R. L. Child pornography: A hidden dimension of child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1984, 8: 483-493.

I couldn't get that whole thing for free.

 

[Brian-M]

No one has remotely offered a way to distinguish them. If you can, I'd love to see it. I've said multiple times that I'm willing to be convinced.

If someone can give me a clear process or a reliable method of distinguishing between the sort of nude modelling that creates the psychological damage described in the US Embassy report and they type of nude modeling that doesn't, fine, I would have no problem.

If you actually read the report you mention (here), you'll notice that they give the following definition...

For the purposes of this paper, recognizing that each country's legal definition of "child" may be different, the term "child pornography" will refer to a "sexually explicit reproduction of a child's image."

They then go on to clarify...

Child pornography is to be distinguished from "child erotica" which is "any material relating to children that serves a sexual purpose for a given individual." Child erotica includes such items such as toys, games, children's clothing, sexual aids, manuals, drawings, catalogues, and non-pornographic photographs of children.

What we're talking about is nude modeling, which this report places in the category of child erotica, not child pornography. The report doesn't address this issue at all.

The distinction is simple when you look at the definitions above. Just ask, is it sexually explicit? The distinction can be blurred at times, but in most cases it's very clear.

Well, if an international study on the effects of children involved in child pornography, even when physical abuse doesn't occur, isn't up to your standards, I don't know what to give you.

Well, that depends on how you're using the word "potential." THe US Embassy Report on Child Pornography lists a bunch of very serious harm to the kids, absent any physica abuse. So when it happens, it really is harmful.

Where? Where does it say that? I didn't see a section like that anywhere in the report. Here's the entire section on harm to the victims...

VII. EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHY ON CHILDREN


Many have argued that the distribution of obscene adult material is a victimless crime, that no one gets hurt and that what one does privately is his or her own business. In the case of child pornography, however, where a real child is videotaped or photographed, there is always a victim. The distribution of that depiction repeats the victimisation over and over again, long after the original misdeed took place. Likewise, when the face of a child is superimposed on a sexually explicit photo, even though that child never participated in any sexual act, the distribution of the altered image arguably produces a similar effect.


There are two ways in which children can potentially be harmed by child pornography--by being exposed to child pornography or by being filmed themselves. Children who are exposed to pornography are in danger of being desensitised and seduced into believing that pornographic activity is "normal" for children. EFCW Position Statement, supra note 22, at 3. It can provide a kind of modelling that may adversely affect children's behaviour and result in learning experiences which connect sex to exploitation, force, or violence. James Check, Teenage Training: The Effects of Pornography on Adolescent Males, in Laura Lederer and Richard Delgado, eds., The Price We Pay: The Case Against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda and Pornography 89-91 (1995).


The impact on the child victim who is exploited to produce pornography is often serious. Children can experience a myriad of symptoms including physical symptoms and illnesses, emotional withdrawal, anti-social behaviour, mood-swings, depression, fear and anxiety. In a study of children involved in sex rings, all of whom were sexually abused, 54.8% of the children were used in the creation of pornography. In these children, there was a significant relationship between involvement in pornography and a pattern of identification with the exploiter, along with deviant and symptomatic behaviour. Ann Wolbert Burgess, et al., Response Patterns in Children and Adolescents Exploited Through Sex Rings and Pornography, American Journal of Psychiatry 141:5 (May 1984).


Children who are sexually abused or exploited may be at high risk of becoming perpetrators or abusers themselves. Note that there are those who reject the "cycle of abuse" theory because it is females who are more frequently sexually abused and yet males are responsible for the majority of child sexual abuse in most societies. See Kelly, et al.., supra note 16, at 25-26. Those who have been photographed may take drastic measures, for example, burning the house where the pictures are located or stealing back the record of their exploitation. The media in some countries often confuses victims with perpetrators by publishing pictures of children who have been sexually exploited and blanking out the faces of offenders. Those exploited children who enjoyed the attention or who were sexually stimulated carry special shame about their participation in pornography. It must be emphasised that whether minors acquiesced to sexual exploitation, profited from it, or enjoyed it, they are always the victims of an unlawful and often destructive act.

Exactly where in all of that does it even suggest that non-sexually explicit nude modeling harms children in any way? It doesn't even address the subject. It only talks about "obscene adult material".

Once again, my argument is that no one can distinguish between those situations and thusly should not be making unnecessary decisions for children that place them in potentially damaging situations.

I'd argue that's it's very easy to distinguish between situations where innocent nude pictures are being taken which won't harm the child, and situations where sexually explicit photographs are being taken that will likely harm the child.

I would say the burden is on the artist to prove that their use of nude children will not harm those children.

I'd say that the burden is on those opposed to it that non-sexual nude pictures taken for artistic purposes causes harm of any kind to children.

I don't disagree that there is some category of nude child modeling that is both non-sexual and harmless, I just don't know how (nor has anyone remotely tried to provide a method) to distinguish between them.

For example, one of the primary damages from using children as naked models is that it hampers their ability to develop proper adult-child relationships. They come to believe that there's nothing odd about being naked around an adult who is not their relative and DRASTICALLY increses the chance that they will become an abuse victim.

Can we have some supporting evidence for this claim please?