Pretty Baby

Well, to me, being a emetophile among other things, movies like The Vomit Gore Trilogy by Lucifer Valentine are quite artistic. The only difference is that they only involve adults.

Pretty Baby isn't really trying to sexually excite the viewer. I am not saying that it doesn't sexually excite or that they don't use Brooke Shields in a way that is sexual, but that isn't the main reason for the movie. I think that is what make it art. And I have seen it for sale in stores, so I don't think that it is considered child porn.

-- Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:06 am --

Showing nude kids isn't illegal (at least not in the US, I don't know about other countries) because nudist pictures of kids are legal and so are art photographs of naked kids.

Randi wrote:Pretty Baby isn't really trying to sexually excite the viewer. I am not saying that it doesn't sexually excite or that they don't use Brooke Shields in a way that is sexual, but that isn't the main reason for the movie. I think that is what make it art. And I have seen it for sale in stores, so I don't think that it is considered child porn.

-- Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:06 am --

Showing nude kids isn't illegal (at least not in the US, I don't know about other countries) because nudist pictures of kids are legal and so are art photographs of naked kids.

All nude images of anyone under 18 can be classed a child pornography now. Reason for this is the Canadian company who started selling "nudists" vids of young boys, and presenting them as legal naturist videos, which I think they may well have been, if I read the story correctly they were raided once but could not be prosecuted, so the authorities had to stretch the hell out of the child porn laws. That is, the content did not fit the law, so the law was tampered with to fit the content. Now a clothed picture of a child (bathing suit or trunks) also falls within child pornography, if a man possess them with no good reason. In the UK, a cartoon can be child pornography,and the US will follow with this soon enough. Those of you with shotacon or lolicon, be warned, there is a bed in a penitentiary with your name on it.

Well, I don't know about Canada or the UK, but in the US they aren't considered child porn unless they are sexual in nature. My parents have nude pics of me and my brothers and my sister, when we were little. But they aren't sexual, at all. I mean, people might look at them and have sexual thoughts, but they are sexual in the way that they were done.

Randi wrote:Well, I don't know about Canada or the UK, but in the US they aren't considered child porn unless they are sexual in nature. My parents have nude pics of me and my brothers and my sister, when we were little. But they aren't sexual, at all. I mean, people might look at them and have sexual thoughts, but they are sexual in the way that they were done.

These weren't sexual in nature, that is the point, the law had to be stretched to make them sexual in nature. And you are wrong about them being legal in the US, hundreds were prosecuted and jailed in the US after making purchases of these movies. I can tell you such things are illegal under federal law, and if I have read it correctly, child pornography possession prosecuted under federal law carries harsher penalties than haveing sex with a child. My advice would be to do neither. And if anyone reading this has any nude or semi nude depiction of anyone under 18, be it in a movie or cartoon, chuck it out.

The Supreme Court already threw out laws against cartoons. And Pretty Baby is sold in stores. If it was child porn I would think they would be in trouble!

Randi wrote:The Supreme Court already threw out laws against cartoons. And Pretty Baby is sold in stores. If it was child porn I would think they would be in trouble!

I can get you are not alone in stores in the UK. I wouldn't bloody dare knowing what I now know.

I'm not from the UK and I am not talking about the UK. I am from the US and I am talking about the US, which I have said several times.

Randi wrote:I'm not from the UK and I am not talking about the UK. I am from the US and I am talking about the US, which I have said several times.

I know that, but you are still not understanding. The original content or context is not as important as the perceived usage. Toddlers and tiaras is shown on TV. But if you had a recording of it and visited this forum it is possible to argue in a US court that you are using it for pornographic purposes, if you screen capped or edited it in any way you would have made child pornography. At a county level, I am led to believe the sheriff gets to decide what is pornography. I am only going by what I have read. I am passing that on not trying to have an argument with you. If you would like to risk posessing such things then that is your choice. If not then I see no reason why you should be so defensive.

The feds watch this board you know....

First of all, I'm not a pedophile. Second, the judge and jury decide what is pornography and what isn't and eventually it will be taken to the Supreme Court if it is something that is ridiculous. Things like that have been tried before and the Supreme Court has decided that it isn't porn. I don't know what it is like in other countries (and I have said that many times) but in the US that is how it works.