How much is too much skin for a child?

My topic was of coarse assuming that the person looking at these photos is a pedophile. If for some reason a non-pedophile was looking at these photos, it would be acceptable. Anyways, recently I have acquired photos of toddles sitting on toilets with their butt and private parts covered.I DID NOT get these photos from a CP site. Even though their sexual parts are covered, every thing else is not. I feel bad when I look at these photos, because I know they're not just referring to the emotional attraction, but the sexual attraction as well. I would never do anything to harm a child. I do not interact with children, because real face to face contact with them make me feel ashamed of me and my disorder. I feel like every post I make I keep having to reiterate that, because many of the pedophiles on this site (including me) would never do anything to harm a child.Please let me know what you guys think. I'm probably going to have a lot of posts like this, because Im only 16 and i'm trying to get used to this sexual disorder.

P.S. Sorry I over used the word because.

what do you mean by "referring to"? are you worried that the pictures were taken for sexual purposes?

No, When I said "referring to", I meant MY purpose for possessing these photos. I was not saying that is why the photos were up in the first place. The photos were put on the internet, because these children were having trouble grasping the concept of having to do 1 and 2 in the potty, and their parents were glad when they succeeded.

This just reminded me of this commercial I see on TV sometimes. It's this girl in it who looks to be about 9 years old and she's wearing this really small bikini that looks really thin and basically looks like underwear. I always thought it was weird that they had her wear that, especially on a commercial that's all over TV.

That doesn't answer your question or anything, but it just reminded me of that so I thought I'd share cause that commercial always kind of weirded me out....

Well, answering your question in my opinion... Kids need to be fully dressed, just face, arms and legs showing(till the knee). That's because I'm kinda paranoid, but there's nothing wrong with naked people be it adults/teens/elders/kids. So what is YOUR purpose for being in possession of these pictures? There must be a reason even if the genitals are covered. If you need someone to talk to, feel free to message me! I'm about your age

You say you would never harm a child, so if you are being honest with yourself I don't see the problem unless you are afraid that looking at those pictures will change the how you feel.

If it feels good and it isn't hurting any one, then go for it. There's nothing wrong with kids dressing sexy or showing skin . That's my opinion though and it probably differs from the opinions of most people here.

sprooglestrewft wrote:You say you would never harm a child, so if you are being honest with yourself I don't see the problem unless you are afraid that looking at those pictures will change the how you feel.

If it feels good and it isn't hurting any one, then go for it. There's nothing wrong with kids dressing sexy or showing skin . That's my opinion though and it probably differs from the opinions of most people here.

Agreed.: )

I have younger cousins that do dance and pageants and I personally think the costumes are far too revealing. And it seems almost intentional. Girls today are encouraged to be sexy from way younger than I feel is appropriate. It's not even pedo paranoia...it's really just that I feel children should be children.

That said...I dress fairly conservatively myself, so that could be part of it.

Road-runner15 wrote:My topic was of coarse assuming that the person looking at these photos is a pedophile. If for some reason a non-pedophile was looking at these photos, it would be acceptable.

Then why would it not be acceptable for a paedophile?
I suspect the real question is about whether it is harmful to you. How much is too much skin for you? Does looking at images of naked children hurt you and exacerbate your sexual attraction to children? I don't think other people can tell you how much skin is too much for you.

Platypus wrote:Then why would it not be acceptable for a paedophile?

Unfortunately the distinction really does matter, at least under the laws of England and Wales. As I understand it, there have been people convicted of possessing 'indecent' images of children that cannot be construed (by any stretch of the imagination) to be indecent or involve erotic posing. But due to the volume of images, it was deemed that the only reason the defendant would have amassed them would be out of an 'unhealthy interest' in children, which was deemed to render the images 'indecent' to the defendant. I personally see this as an insidious move away from interpreting key terms from legislation and case law ('indecent' and 'erotic posing' respectively) as terms that pertain to qualities or characteristics of the images themselves to a scenario in which the said terms are interpreted on the basis of presumed viewer response. This is tantamount to persecution on the grounds of sexuality, a human rights issue. If (I stress: if) I had a couple of hundred images of clothed celebrity girls on my computer because I have a bit of a crush on them, why the heck should I be prosecuted for possessing indecent images? Should it not be a defence to say 'look, I'm familiar with the law, and I've interpreted it to a very reasonable extent and adhered to it rigorously'. But they'd still want to send you down if they could because apparently fancying kids is heinous.