How much is too much skin for a child?

Perhaps the point is then that it's not socially acceptable to amass photos of children, whether you are a paedophile or not. (It's just that paedophiles are more likely to be prosecuted for the crime.)

I think it depends on the situation. I mean, if swimming it should be a one piece as opposed to a bikini, yet if walking down the street, said one piece wouldn't be enough.

The way I see it is that if it would be considered sexy, alluring or otherwise capable of inducing excitement were it on an adult (of either gender) then it's too little for a child. As someone said skirts no higher than the knee and tops that cover down to their belt line and up to their neck line. Arms, meh, sleves, no sleves, no difference.

Clarification, not including things like pencil skirt/blouse/tigts/glasses as I know myself on the right woman the whole 'librarian look' is quite appealing.

Anon539 wrote:I think it depends on the situation. I mean, if swimming it should be a one piece as opposed to a bikini, yet if walking down the street, said one piece wouldn't be enough.

The way I see it is that if it would be considered sexy, alluring or otherwise capable of inducing excitement were it on an adult (of either gender) then it's too little for a child. As someone said skirts no higher than the knee and tops that cover down to their belt line and up to their neck line. Arms, meh, sleves, no sleves, no difference.

Clarification, not including things like pencil skirt/blouse/tigts/glasses as I know myself on the right woman the whole 'librarian look' is quite appealing.

I believe it was me that said about the clothing lol. Anyways, I do agree it depends on the situation and also on the era as things change, rules and laws change. Years from now it could be normal for someone to walk in undies down the street or it could be everyone's wearing layers upon layers of clothing. So this concept would change overtime, but how to keep up with the change?

Platypus wrote:Perhaps the point is then that it's not socially acceptable to amass photos of children, whether you are a paedophile or not. (It's just that paedophiles are more likely to be prosecuted for the crime.)

Not socially acceptable, but interpretation of the law should not be based on what the masses want. They would have a non-offending paedophile skinned alive merely for having the capacity for being attracted to children. If the law stipulates that the criteria are that the image be 'indecent' and involve 'erotic posing', then surely it's irrelevant whether the viewer happens to find them attractive?

I'll give an example. My porn is YouTube. I watch girls doing gymnastics or ballet, or talking about their pets, or singing songs. Granted, I'd find it more arousing if they were nude, but that would be illegal, so I stick to the law. My response to these YouTube videos is arousal. Am I breaking the law? But these are legal videos made by people who are aware that they are 'broadcasting' to anyone and everyone, and who have a choice about what they put out on the Internet? Are these videos 'indecent' because I happen to find them hot?

Partridge wrote:
Not socially acceptable, but interpretation of the law should not be based on what the masses want. They would have a non-offending paedophile skinned alive merely for having the capacity for being attracted to children. If the law stipulates that the criteria are that the image be 'indecent' and involve 'erotic posing', then surely it's irrelevant whether the viewer happens to find them attractive?

I'll give an example. My porn is YouTube. I watch girls doing gymnastics or ballet, or talking about their pets, or singing songs. Granted, I'd find it more arousing if they were nude, but that would be illegal, so I stick to the law. My response to these YouTube videos is arousal. Am I breaking the law? But these are legal videos made by people who are aware that they are 'broadcasting' to anyone and everyone, and who have a choice about what they put out on the Internet? Are these videos 'indecent' because I happen to find them hot?

Indeed, the line of the law is incredibly bendy here when it helps their purpose, but incredibly solid when going the other way.

Sorry, I'm not interested in arguing law. I'll leave that for the lawyers and others who are interested. Road-runner15 said the photos were acceptable to non-paedophiles, but not whether that meant socially acceptable or legally acceptable. I just wanted to make the point that the photos are acceptable or they aren't - it shouldn't matter whether a person is a paedophile or not. So to me it sounded like the acceptability wasn't the issue. [Personally, I'd suspect that all photos of naked children, showing genitalia or otherwise, could be considered child pornography, but obviously it depends on regional laws.]

I thought the issue was whether the photos are harmful or not i.e. should Road-runner15 keep them and look at them. I think that's a personal decision and that people need to take responsibility for their own paraphilias. If you know you cannot act on your sexual attraction, do you want to look at photos of naked children? Some people will say yes, others will say no. Some ex-alcoholics may choose to never look at alcohol again because the temptation to drink is too strong, and others may enjoy collecting wine bottles.

Yes indeed, you have a good point there. Personally I use things that are legal that satisfy the philia As I know there won't come a time in my life that I wouldn't be lynched should I openly talk about it, never mind even contemplate acting on it. So to satiate the urges and make sure it doesn't get to an overwhelming state I use things that are completely legal and would not be difficult to explain.

No worries, Platypus, I'm sort of debating it with myself.

Yes, I think it should be one rule fits all. What if, in the opposite scenario, someone had been viewing genuinely indecent pictures and didn't find them arousing (perhaps they get some kind of non-sexual rush out of viewing taboo material)? If that sounds unlikely, I have in my time viewed all sorts of things (legal at the time), not because it aroused me but just because I was bored. Then they should be able to invoke viewer response and say 'I didn't view that stuff because it turns me on' and be released without charge.

And what of those among us who would describe themselves as asexual, albeit with some element of romantic attraction to children? What if you'd amassed a collection of chaste images of some preteen idol of yours and they tried to claim that you were sexually interested in them and therefore the images were indecent?

As for whether it's good for you, OP, I don't know. Personally for me without YouTube life might be very different, but I don't know whether it would be better or worse. Probably a bit of both.

In some countries total nudity is more socially acceptable than Junior Jazz.

In American we watch Dance Moms and Toddlers and Tiaras like it is normal and wholesome, but a nude child walking along the beach is inappropriate.

In other countries the nude child is considered more wholesome than one dancing in a glitz outfit & make-up.

I think it is shameful the way our society tends to immediately associate sex with nudity.
When a prepubescent girl is naked you cannot see anything anyways, there is nothing to see until her boobs start growing. I think people freak out about it too much. Boys are different though, because the sensitive organ is poking out, you can see it. Boys need to be covered up.

Tabs wrote:I think it is shameful the way our society tends to immediately associate sex with nudity.

I agree with this. I find nudity natural. I think men and women often look more provocative and 'slutty' in skimpy clothing than in the nude.

I also think the way that breastfeeding (or breasts in general) is associated with sex and provocation is ridiculous. I don't see why it's acceptable for a man to walk around shirtless, but not for a woman to do the same. Breasts aren't a sex organ and both males and females have them.

Tabs wrote:When a prepubescent girl is naked you cannot see anything anyways, there is nothing to see until her boobs start growing. I think people freak out about it too much. Boys are different though, because the sensitive organ is poking out, you can see it.

But I don't agree with this. They're all just bodies. I see nothing inherently sexual about a naked human or naked ape, whether it's male, female, old, or young. I think it's just our minds that makes it so. It's not because a male has a penis that his appearance need be any more sexual or offensive than a female's. I don't think looking at photos of naked prepubsescent girls should be more acceptable than looking at photos of naked prepubsescent boys.