Talk:Child pornography

This article was deleted by an administrator and restarted as a stub on 22:07 2007-05-28, due to the presence of a problematic search term. The result of the deletion review was to refer further disputes to ArbCom. Revisions prior to the first that contained the term may be restored.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508024202/http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1504 to http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1504
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150312134551/http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com/2012/icmec-to-train-officers-in-bangkok-september-18-21/ to http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com/2012/icmec-to-train-officers-in-bangkok-september-18-21/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference No. 12 leads to a non-existing article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.211.161.167 (talk • contribs)

 Fixed by adding an archive link. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Should this new text be included?

• I saw a front-page article in today's Daily Telegraph, and from it I was tempted to add the following to section Child pornography#Child sexual abuse in production and distribution:-
  • In April 2018 there was a British newspaper front-page report saying that the proportion of pedophilic images found that were made by children (by photographing or filming each other or as selfies) without adults, by imitating adult pornography or nudity that they had found in the internet), was 31% from November 2017 to February 2018, with 40% in December 2017; 349 cases in January 2017 and 1717 in January 2018.
  • But as child pornography and pedophilia are risky topics, I thought that I better ask first.

Daily Telegraph, Wednesday 18 April 2018, page 1 (bottom right corner) and page 2.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/18/childrens-sex-selfies-fuelling-rise-child-abuse-images/

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, given that child pornography can be defined broadly to include late teenagers who snap pictures of one another, an aspect that is already mentioned in the article (in the Sexting section), I would state no. An image of a naked 17-year-old is not a "pedophilic image." Even the term "pedophilic image" is problematic.

Legitimus, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I do see that the source mentions 11-15 year-olds. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn and Legitimus: I am very sorry if I have given any wrong impression here. I have NO inappropriate interests, thank God. Here in England the topic of pedophilia (spelled "paedophilia" in British spelling) and related subjects are wearisomely familiar to nearly everybody through being repeatedly trumpeted and plastered at length over the ordinary newspapers (including their front pages) and television news until I get weary of reading and hearing about it, and more so since the Jimmy Savile affair blew up. The newspaper article that I mentioned, with a large headline, 2 columns wide, stared at me from the bottom right corner of the front page of the Daily Telegraph (a main-field British newspaper) as soon as I picked it out of its rack in my local newspaper shop. (After the Jimmy Savile sensation had run on endlessly, dominating the news, I was thankful when the 2013 horse meat scandal blew up, because it gave the newspapers and the television news something else and not sexual, to sensationalize about.) If you decide not to include this matter, then feel free not to include it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, you haven't given me any wrong impression. I'm familiar with you from WP:Requested moves, and your proposal struck me as innocent. I was simply expressing concern about the proposal because children and teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves and/or one another has been criticized when it comes to be categorized as child pornography. The minors usually do not have the same intent as the adults, and there are cases where teenagers get branded sex offenders when their intentions were not at all the same as actual sex offenders (as noted in the Sexting section). So I was wondering about us including your text as "production and distribution." There's also a WP:NOTNEWS aspect to it. And by "not pedophilic image," I meant that pedophilia is not about a sexual interest in clearly pubescent or post-pubescent individuals, but rather prepubescent children, and "pedophilic image" is odd wording because images can't really be pedophilic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, no need to ping me since this page is on my wachlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have now put the text in the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, I wasn't stating that I agree with the text being added. I still object per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

___

References

There are some sexologists who said that...

banning CP is "not only deprive children of their sexual freedom,but also deprive children of their freedom to show their body and how sexy are them" and "A certain degree of sexual activity is necessary and beneficial for children"(Translated from Chinese:"可见这法律不但剥夺了儿童性交的自由,也剥夺了他们展示自己身体和性感一面的自由...一定程度上的性活动对儿童是必须和有益的"), by Ng Man Lun(吴敏伦),Founding President of World Association of Chinese Sexologists.Should we put it on the article?,see pages 19-22,and I remember that Chinese Sexologist Li Yinhe who also believe that have sex with children is not always harmful,if they are on their own initiative.--So47009 (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It is doubtful it should be added based on this description. Wikipedia has a policy called WP:FRINGE where views/sources that are very small and contradicted by numerous stronger, more reliable sources do not need to be added to an article. Further, the article you posted is in Chinese, making it difficult to verify if it says what you claim it does. It is also difficult to ascertain if Ng Man Lun has any academic credentials or license, if the statement is based on research or just his or her personal opinion, and if it was subject to peer-review. I also could not verify that Li Yinhe ever expressed the view you claim she did. Her work and activism seems to be centered around LGBT rights and changing criminal laws in China that less progressive than most Western countries. Of note is that it is a common tactic of anti-LGBT factions to accuse LGBT people and activists of promoting sex with children in order to discredit/disparage them, since this is universally considered harmful, so this claim is somewhat suspect.Legitimus (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ng Man Lun is a Psychiatrist who studied it at University of Hong Kong,and a registered therapist who has studied sex therapy in US ,see here,a Translated version,;and Li Yinhe pointed out it in problems of sexuality[性的問題],in which she said that the law about Age of consent is harmful for those engage in sexual activity on their own initiative.

digression:This may affect WP:CHILDPRO since it obstruct some sexologists who has those claims and want to editing wikipedia --So47009 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Also,the sentence"Children of all ages, including infants,are abused in the production of pornography"is not need to change,but adding a text"some sexologists,such as ABC ,said..."--So47009 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have done a cursory translation of the material, and it would not seem to support your assertions. First and most important: This article we are discussing here is about pornography, not age of consent and sexual abuse of children. Your sources are about age of consent and child sexual abuse. In other words, your in the wrong article talk page. Second, the sources you posted appear to be merely opinions of individuals. This is very weak information for two reasons. One is that it is flatly contradicted by stronger sources where children who had sex too young were studied and compared with children who did not, and were found to have numerous psychological problems even when controlling for poverty, support, education etc. Two, there is a slightly tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless accurate aphorism called Skarka's Law, which essentially states no matter how incorrect or even reprehensible a position may be, if you search the internet long enough, you will find someone who will defend it. This is why we have the WP:FRINGE rule: Just because somebody out there said it doesn't make it valid or worthy of mentioning.Legitimus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

OK…… although most source do not deal with the children agree or not，all call it“child sexual abuse”.And how about sexual right-related arguments？Ng believe that banning CP is violate “The right to autonomy and bodily integrity”，or something like that .--So47009 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect. The other studies, especially more recent ones, account for whether or not the child "agreed" and even if no force or coercion was used, harm was still demonstrated. The harm is different, but it is still there. Also, the "right to bodily autonomy" etc is not a scientific argument. By that logic, you would permit a child to chop off their own arm simply because they desire to do so. Even when an adult desires to do that (and there is no medical reason to do so), it's considered a situation where other people are justified in intervening to prevent it.

You so far have still not explained if Ng talked about CP explicitly in his works. He does not appear to, and if you are just inferring that he believes this, that is also inappropriate because of the WP:SYNTHESIS rule.Legitimus (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence I have said is Ng’point. he believe that let a 10 year old children know about what are the possible harm of sexual intercourse is not harder than let them know about the harm of fighting,it depending on the social provide the knowledge about sex or not.So it is not a reason for banning CP.In conclusion,he said"Cancellation of penalties relating to virtual children and virtual sexual intercourse（which means CP by inferred as above）"--So47009 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Also,your views may be correct ，but not sure since it have a lot a factors ,see The Harm Argument part of here--So47009 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That last article actually supports what I said about harm and raises almost the exact same point, as flimsy as it is for a source. But even if I were to disregard all the problems I have raised so far, there seems to be too much a language barrier to verify this claim. I cannot rely on your translation since you are the one advancing the argument, and your own apparent limitations are making this conversation difficult. Which raises the question why you are so intent to adding this material to the English-language version of the page, considering the Chinese language version also does not use these sources or make these arguments.Legitimus (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK,I believe that English version can get me a lot of useful information about this topic, there are so many people editing it.Since I can't translate the whole paper and it always become mojibake when I copy it,I want to finish the discussion--So47009 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)