In the first part of this essay I meandered my way towards the hypothesis that the “goal of laws relating to sexual images of children [is] the effective eradication of the notion of child sexuality from the popular discourse, culture and the minds of the citizenry”.

In a sense, simply proposing this as an explanation for Society’s draconian response to the sexual imagery of children could be taken as a case for a defense of that very imagery.

There is also a case to be made that pornography (presumably including child pornography) reduces rates of offending through providing a means of relieving sexual frustration in those tempted to offend. But this seems like such a complex issue that I’m going to take the coward’s way and steer clear of it, at least for the time being.

So, if part 1 of this blog-essay amounted to a kind of defense of sexual images of children, this second part will consider some of their more problematic aspects and, as so often in debates about paedophilia and child sexuality, the crux of the matter, I suspect, will boil down to questions of ‘consent’.

It’s not easy writing about child pornography: I feel too much like those reviewers one finds on Amazon and elsewhere, who clearly haven’t read the book in question, and are reacting to its title, its subject matter, its alleged standpoint or its author’s reputation.

My own personal relationship, or rather ‘non-relationship‘, with child porn has been defined by a rather conformist, law-abiding streak in me, my capacity to get off on adult pornography, and a fear that if I saw things that matched those descriptions I’d read, I’d end up well and truly ‘hooked’: it’s not the possibility of my not liking it that has kept me away from it, but rather the probability of my liking it too much.

What is Child Pornography? How can one distinguish it from other related types of imagery? Child Erotica? Nude Photography? Or Art Photographs?

I find a good working definition of ‘pornography’ is a depiction whose main purpose is to elicit sexual arousal through explicit representation of primary erogenous zones and/or sexual activity.

This would distinguish it from, say, ‘nudist photographs’ (which show the human body naked, but neither focus our attention on erogenous zones or on sexual activity) and Art Photographs, such as Sally Mann’s, whose main purpose is not to elicit sexual arousal, though a sensual response, or even sexual one, may be part of the effect that the artist seeks.

With ‘Art’ the sought-after effect is hard to define – each artist, indeed each individual work of art, in a sense, re-invents for itself a new and original purpose. However, so long as the sexual response is a subordinate to that greater purpose, the work should not be considered as ‘pornography’. This was the defense used when the UK publishers of D. H Lawrence’s ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ were arraigned for ‘obscenity’ – its publishers were able to escape conviction because they were able to show that the work was of literary merit.

The following reflections on child pornography will be based on an argumentum ab optimo position: I will assume the imagery in question has no element of coercion, deception, manipulation, brutality or cruelty.

A lot depends on Context. We can choose to consider the ethics of child pornography in the current social context, or as it would be in an ideal society. Of course such a statement raises the question ‘whose ideal society?’ The ‘man on the street’ may not share the paedophile’s vision of the ‘ideal society’.

I’ll lay my cards on the table: I believe that a society where child-adult intimacy were licit would be an all-round better society than the one we live in today – not just because children and adults would be able to be intimate with each other, but because such a society would be more beneficial for human relations in general, for quality of life and for the environment (see my essay “the future is green and liberating for children”).

Tempting as it is to focus on the status of child pornography in such ideal circumstances. This is a temptation I will resist, other than to say that with child-adult intimacy less stigmatised, less body shame, and a greater acceptance of child sexuality many of the problems associated with child pornography in our WEIRD societies (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) would disappear, or be reduced to those problems which are associated with all images – those of privacy, permission, copyright and payment.



It seems to me that here are three separate ethical areas that need to be considered:

  • the acts depicted
  • the act of depiction
  • the acts of distribution
the acts depicted

My personal opinion is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sensual or sexual intimacy between an adult and a child provided that the relationship is truly consensual and hasn’t come round through manipulation. However this is not enough to justify such relationships in the context of the societies most of us live in.

One can’t ignore the problem that when relationships occur in a context which stigmatises them then it is likely that the child will suffer when the relationship is discovered. And even if it isn’t discovered, when the growing child becomes aware of this stigma and starts to recontextualise what happened, there is a significant risk that they will experience trauma of some kind and/or adopt a damaging victim identity.

Granted, this suffering is not directly caused by the adult or the relationship. However an analogy would be that of a stand-off between a robber who has taken a child as hostage and an armed policeman. The robber is pointing a gun at the child’s head and warns the policeman that he will pull the trigger if the policeman tries anything clever. The policeman, on impulse, goes for his gun and the robber holds good his threat and shoots the child dead.

Who is responsible for the child’s death?

The robber created the situation and pulled the trigger and so, as the agent of death, must hold primary responsibility. But the policeman knowingly acted in a such a way as to cause the robber to pull the trigger, and so must also have a share in the responsibility for the child’s death.

The ‘policeman’ is the adult lover of a child, the ‘robber’ is Society. A paedophile in an intimate relationship with a child can not use the fact that the intimacy is of itself morally neutral (or indeed ‘positive’), and that it is Society that will administer the harm, to exonerate himself of responsibility for any potential harm the child may go on to suffer. A caring lover would not be so reckless about the future of a child he loves.

But it also seems harsh to condemn such relationships when they are conducted lovingly and with the child’s ongoing consent. A significant number of such relationships don’t result in harm, despite society’s best efforts/ Moreover when you feel an intense love for a child, and that child reciprocates and seeks increased intimacy, I can imagine how hard it must be to stifle that love, how it can feel petty and inappropriate to deny the child the affection, the pleasure, the experience that she craves – and maybe even needs, if she’s been deprived of love by her parents. Sometimes in such circumstances the love, despite Society’s strictures, can feel so right it can’t be wrong.

the act of depiction

By ‘the acts of depiction’ I mean the filming or photographing.

Let us posit an ab optimo scenario: that the child is giving ‘simple consent’ (consent on the level of ‘yes, I like that. Carry on’ or ‘let’s do this’), and also some form of ‘informed consent’, to the sexual interaction being depicted (for a deeper analysis of ‘consent’ see my essay the staircase has not one step but many).

Let us also assume that the child knows she is being filmed or photographed and has given prior agreement to it, or even suggested it (I use ‘prior agreement’ rather than the word ‘consent’ since I don’t want to assume that ‘prior agreement’ necessarily amounts to ‘consent’).

It might seem like a fine distinction, but a lot depends on whether the child is 1/ interacting with the camera and the cameraman, or 2/ with another ‘actor’.

In both scenarios the child could in theory withdraw consent to being photographed, but it is a lot more easily done in the first scenario than in the second: if the child is interacting with the camera and is constantly aware of where it’s pointing and what it’s recording she is better able to monitor what is going on and withdraw consent as to certain photographs being taken – for example she may not be happy about photographs being taken of her genitals or anus.

Concerning the second scenario I have seen much adult pornography where two or more people are interacting with one another but not the camera. Here it is likely that the focus of actors’ attention is primarily is not on the camera but on their interaction with the other actor and, indeed an experienced director will put the actors at ease and an experienced camera man will be able to operate in such a way that the actors no longer notice his presence. In such circumstances the actors’ capacity to give ‘Simple Consent’ is much diminished, a child’s even more so. They are no longer interacting with the recording apparatus and are therefore less able to monitor what is being recorded and to make ongoing consent decisions (and ‘consent’ by its very nature is an ongoing process).

the acts of distribution

By ‘acts of distribution’ I mean the publishing, distribution and dissemination of films and photographs of sexual imagery of children. Can a child give valid consent to this?

It is useful to remind ourselves of the two forms of consent relevant to this question – ‘Simple Consent’ and ‘Informed Consent’.

‘Simple Consent’ is a form of control which operates as an action is happening – the participants are monitoring the activity and its effects and making second-to-second decisions as to whether they want it to stop or continue, or whether they want the interaction to change course.

It is ‘yes, I like that carry on‘, ‘no, I don’t like that stop‘ or ‘let’s try this‘. It is a form of consent that we are born with – a baby’s crying or gurgling with happiness are both forms of simple consent in operation. It is also a form of consent that intelligent animals other than humans are capable of expressing and understanding.

‘Informed Consent’ is generally required in the following situations:

  • where the person whose consent is being solicited wouldn’t be expected to have the information necessary to make a decision and has to be given this information prior to them making a consent decision,
  • when the acts being consented to have significant repercussions beyond the actual span of the activity itself (e.g. when giving someone power of attorney over your affairs),
  • where the participant is deprived of the capacity to give, withhold or withdraw ‘simple consent’ (i.e. they are unable to say ‘stop’ or ‘carry on’) by the very actions for which consent is being sought (e.g. when about to undergo surgery under anaesthetic).

Can the child then give Simple Consent to the images or films being distributed?

It seems that ‘Simple Consent’ doesn’t really apply to the question of distribution: whilst a child may give agreement to her adult partner clicking the ‘upload’ button on his computer, and thus publishing a load of pornographic photos of her – the child is not able to monitor the consequences of that action or control them in real time. She can not withdraw her consent to those images continuing to be disseminated around the Internet.

Can the child then give Informed Consent to the images or films being distributed?

In theory – yes. Informed Consent is sought from children who will feature in adverts, films and tv series. This consent is sought because the acts being consented to have significant repercussions beyond the actual span of the activity itself. Generally children (or their parents) will give this consent because the child likes the process of acting, and because the outcome of giving consent is likely to have favourable consequences for the child’s future (though, of course, sometimes that isn’t the case).

However, whilst the child may enjoy the intimacy that is depicted in the photographs or films it would be a hard argument to make that publishing and disseminating pornographic images of a child is likely to have positive consequence for the child’s future, certainly not in a social context that stigmatises child-adult intimacy as virulently as does ours. This makes it hard (for me anyway) to imagine how an adult, who genuinely cares about a child, could publish or distribute such material – it seems more an act of boasting than an act of love and care.

This is a parallel objection to the one which militates against children being able to give full informed consent to intimacy with an adult. To quote my essay “The staircase has not one step but many

‘Even if a child does adequately fulfill the normal criteria for being “informed” there is one criterion that will ensure that the child cannot ever be fully informed: the knowledge of the nature and extent of social stigma associated with child/adult sexual/sensual relationships. If the child is ignorant of this, she clearly is not “informed”; if she is aware of the stigma, faced with such a horrific prospect, she is unlikely to wish to engage in the sexual activities.

In a society where such relationships were not so heavily stigmatised, in which children were given the conceptual tools by which to be aware of their bodily integrity and autonomy, they would be able to give “informed consent”.’


The sexual imagery of children in our society create a ‘layer cake’ of the ethical problems and pitfalls associated with each stage of the production of such images. To the complexities and risks of child-adult intimacy are added the question of how effectively a child can monitor and control her interaction with the recording medium. Then there’s the most ethically culpable stage of all – the distribution of the images.

Whilst distribution of images of a child is not in itself ethically wrong (loving parents routinely send photos and film of their children to relatives and friends) the highly stigmatised nature of sexual images of children makes it hard to see how the distribution of such images, especially to strangers, could be in the child’s interest, not is it likely to have neutral consequences.

However I can imagine a scenario where an adult and his little lover record their consensual intimacy either to watch later or as a souvenir. They keep these recordings of their love secret, and share it only with themselves or with people whom they trust. This scenario seems ethically defensible.

I can also imagine a social context where child-adult intimacy is more accepted and such recordings would not carry the burden of stigma they do in our current society, and therefore not be harmful for the child as she grows up.

However it is useful to remember that in a society where adult-adult sex is not in itself stigmatised, participation in recordings of sexual activity still do attract a significant level of stigma. Think of the phenomenon of slut-shaming, and how the profession of porn is still one that is considered somewhat shameful. There seems to be certain values (privacy, monogamy, love, financial disinterest…) associated with an ideal of sex which if violated nevertheless result in the participants being stigmatised.




13 thoughts on “The Sexual Child – The Ultimate Obscenity? Part 2

  1. Very good set of insights, Lensman! One thing I think, though, that must necessarily be added to your list of three questions is this fourth one: “What are the consequences on the foundation of a democratic society of resorting to blanket illegality under any and all circumstances in regards to CP?”

    In other words, as much as we justifiably want to protect the hearts and reputations of underagers who may not benefit from having morally stigmatized imagery shared across cyberspace by those whose main concern may not be their best interests… there is a bigger picture to consider, and unlike any theoretical question, we can actually look at the end results of blanket illegality put into practice. This, of course, is because that is the world we have actually lived in for the past few decades.

    And, since this very important but oft-neglected question exists outside the framework of mere hypothetical musings and considerations, we must ask ourselves two important things: 1) Have children in general benefited from this reality? and, 2) Has society as a whole benefited from this sacrifice of the First Amendment that it has “nobly” embraced to “protect” the children, to the point of welcoming draconian measures as being the sometimes “friend” of the child?

    We can reliably point out the consequences here, since we have seen the above framework in action for over three decades now. Here are 13 of them to readily consider:

    1) If you agree to just a few draconian “exceptions” to libertarian civil values within the framework of a politically democratic framework, these measures invariably begin spreading to more and more things, until the democratic framework is threatened to its very core;

    2) The stated desire to “protect” children from exploitation has resulted in a war on The Expression of Child Sexuality itself, and to stifle any and all possible depictions of it, even within the context of overtly scientific and artistic works, simply because depictions in these works “might” result in being used by “perverts” to “get off” on the images depicted therein;

    3) It has radically increased stigmatization of intergenerational sexual contact under any possible context, not decreased them;

    4) It has resulted in the extreme marginalization of youths from society, greater than that which existed before it when youths first lost all of the rights they may have enjoyed prior to the onset of the Industrial Revolution, to the point where children are rarely allowed out of the house except when going to and from this or that place accompanied by a parent or other authorized adult guardian;

    5) It has resulted in a fierce protectionist attitude that totally derailed the progress towards youth liberation that began in the late 1960s and progressed into the 1970s, which lasted for a decade and a half, until its re-emergence in the late ’90s, where it has had to fight a greater uphill battle against the protectionist lobby;

    6) Witch-hunts galore, which take on many horrid forms, including the early form of the Satanic ritual abusers, and has resulted in numerous people who are not even MAPs to be subject to unjust legal censure and imprisonment;

    7) It has resulted in the repeated open and even gleeful smashing of any objective scientific study made of the phenomena surrounding youth sexuality and even youth capabilities for independence in general, putting ideological beliefs ahead;

    8) It has had the side effect of deeply marginalizing and demonizing an entire minority group – us kind folk – including causing other minority groups who were less stigmatized at the beginning of the present hysteria to abandon support of us and to turn on us vehemently for their own perceived best political interests;

    9) It has become one of the main factors in creating the rapid growth of the surveillance state, causing both government agencies and corporations dealing with private communications technology to openly argue for searching the private archives of their customer bases looking for any sign of depictions of sexual “abuse” of kids (read: anything showing sexual expression of younger people; see my upcoming newest essay for more on this in-depth);

    10) It has increased measures to stifle the emerging places on the Internet where younger people are allowed to express themselves on their own terms, particularly the soc net forums where younger adolescents are increasingly having a voice, and the video sharing sites where pubescents and (increasingly) pre-pubescents may upload vids to express themselves;

    11) It has increasingly exacerbated the extreme age-segregation placed in this society and reinforced its gerontocentric nature to a huge extent, thus further denying younger people any type of “unauthorized” interactions with adult communities to bring their voices to the collective table, all under the pretense of “protecting” them from adult “predators”;

    12) It has resulted in many actual legal attempts at thought control, allowing courts to punish people for what they may have been thinking when looking at certain pics or reading certain texts – which is the ultimate invasion of privacy;

    13) Finally (at least for this post), it has increased the numbers of underagers, including many pre-pubescents, who have themselves been brought up on charges and/or placed under clinical authority for engaging in consensual sexual contact with each other, or “sexting” nude or otherwise provocative pics of themselves over a cell phone, soc net forums, etc., thus causing younger people to become guilty of “predation” on themselves.

    So based on taking all of the above into consideration, while not in any way dismissing the legitimate concerns you mentioned in the second part of your essay here, Lensman, my urgent suggestion is this: the solution to mitigate any of the problems you mentioned need to be democratic, and never draconian.

    We have been able to witness the latter “solution” in place for a few decades now, and I think if we are to continue to place any value on civil liberties, we need to declare any and all draconian responses to these problems an abject failure that only worsens existing problems and creates a host of new ones that no democratic society should tolerate. It also makes it clear, I think, that despite the honest desire to protect kids from the possibilities you mentioned, there nevertheless is a much bigger picture that should not be dismissed, because the kids are negatively effected by doing so as well as everyone else.


    1. Wow Dissident! You’ve certainly given me a lot to think about!

      To be honest – after finishing this two-part essay I still couldn’t say that I had a clear-cut position on child-pornography, and all the points you made sort of make me feel that I need to stop sitting on the fence.

      Yes, I agree that the level of illegality of child pornography in society as it is today is harmful both to children, to adults and society. But if ‘society as it is’ allowed child porn it would no longer be ‘society as it is’ – it would be very different – so the question is less one of whether child porn should be decriminalised (whether just the consumption, or the distribution and production) as to how society would need to change before such a decriminalisation became possible.

      Maybe not as much as one might at first suspect. Am I right in thinking that child porn was legal in the UK right up till 1978? (Not coincidentally the 70s were also the last time where growth related environmental damage was at a sufficiently low level that the climate could ‘self-heal’ – offering a recent memory of a society where child porn is legal and we lived in better harmony with the environment – despite pollution seeming to be a lot more visible at the time in the West).

      Maybe the best we can hope for in the context of society-as-it-is is a return to the 70s – when children were freer and child sexuality was a lot less stigmatised, where the possession of child pornography wasn’t illegal, but presumably if the law was broken in the making of it then those involved could be prosecuted.

      Of course it would be better if consensual child-adult intimacy weren’t illegal but I think here we’re talking about a society that is so radically different to what we have today that such a change can’t be sensibly considered as happening to the society we know – a bit like the Irish man who, when asked by a motorist how to get to Dublin, replied “Well, if I were you I wouldn’t be starting from here.”


      1. Maybe the best we can hope for in the context of society-as-it-is is a return to the 70s – when children were freer and child sexuality was a lot less stigmatised, where the possession of child pornography wasn’t illegal, but presumably if the law was broken in the making of it then those involved could be prosecuted.

        I think you more or less hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head with this statement, Lensman. A type of genuinely liberal socio-political environment like the 1970s, where you need not fear bringing up the question of child sexuality as something that is debatable, would be conducive to enacting democratic solutions to this problem, with legal conditions that were entirely reasonable rather than draconian. It would also allow youth liberation to receive less reluctant support from people on the Left, and to allow severe challenges to the protectionist mania of the present era. Interestingly, though, youth lib has proceeded apace in the current era once the Internet Era truly arrived in the late 1990s, but the subject of sexual rights has had to be put on the backburner of discussion material for obvious reasons. But there are emerging youth lib voices from the underage segment of the movement who, to say the least, are not keen to have their sexual lives and choices held into forced complicity with some type of ideological paradigm created and maintained by adults. They are not going to go for the “protectionist” mentality en masse that so many anti-choicers are hoping for. As one staunch underage youth liberationist recently put it on one of the youth lib boards regarding this topic, “‘Protection’ is too often a euphemism for ‘control.'” They know the score, and are not nearly as dense or ignorant as anti-choicers wish they were. It’s not about a rampant desire among them to be able to have sexual relations with much older partners; it’s about something far more fundamental than that, and they know it.


  2. The distribution of images of a person in an intimate situation (a toddler playing naked, a prepubertal child in sex play, etc.) has far-reaching consequences and poses many more problems than the situation itself. Thus the rules of informed consent should be much stricter for taking and distributing images than for the situation or action depicted.
    In the present social situation, an adult taking and distributing intimate pictures of a prepubertal child is manipulating that child, even if the latter is willing, because (s)he is not informed enough of the consequences. It is a totally different matter with teenagers making and distributing themselves sexy images of themselves, they are usually more mature and better informed than younger ones, also there is no adult pressure.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I mostly agree with you, Christian – though so much depends on the way society-at-large considers these images.

      The strange situation is that whilst almost anything goes now with the depiction of adult sexuality, we’re not far from arriving at a point where even a photo of a naked baby is seen as unacceptable. I think that any society that considers photos of babies and toddlers as potentially pornographic or obscene must be a profoundly sick society.

      Again, nudist photos of children should be acceptable because the children are not being portrayed, or portraying themselves, as sexual. Maybe that is the line of demarcation – the presence of sexuality. But the anglosphere has drifted towards a point where any form of nudity is considered obscene.

      It seems that Western society has gotten itself into a terrible tangle over child sexuality, and the law reflects this – when we see men prosecuted for having downloaded cartoon depictions of children, or getting into trouble for having a collection of cut-outs from children’s clothing catalogues – material that is not in itself illegal.


      1. I said “In the present social situation”; things might be different in a society where children are better informed and do not feel the weight of arbitrary adult authority. Also nudity in a nudist setting is not considered an intimate situation, since it is the normal dress in that social group.
        Virtual child porn made with synthetic images is different, no real child is harmed in it. I heard that the sexologist Milton Diamond (specialist on porn and its supposed influence on sexual violence) is in favour of allowing it, on the ground that it is better viewing it than breaking the law with a real child.


    2. I think it depends on how young the pre-pubertal child in question happens to be, too. I think those who have grown up in today’s digital age are oftentimes capable of making informed decisions along these lines if they have reached the age of, say, 6 or 7 years old. Also, as a youth liberationist, I cannot ascribe to making arbitrary assumptions about one’s level of capability solely due to one’s chronological age, since there are reliable ways of making educated guestimates on this subject without “protecting” someone at the expense of civil liberties principles.

      Kids of such age have proven competent many times over with participating in formulating rules and curricula of democratic schools following the Sudbury model, and these days they routinely appear in videos where they have ample opportunities by that age to learn about the realities and intricacies of the online world. In fact, there are many older adults these days whom it can be very cogently argued are less informed about the reality of the online world than younger kids, and many of the latter who have already had much more exposure to it, and how it works, then a number of older adults who have chosen to go the rest of their lives having scant interaction with it, other than occasionally asking younger relatives if they can maybe “look things up” for them on their “machine.”

      The term “mature” can also be very loaded in its usage, because it tends to presume a set of characteristics that can be present or lacking in any one regardless of age. Believe me, I fully understand the impulse to protect kids, particularly younger kids, but I think there are better ways to go about it than anything resembling what has been done since the more enlightened days of the 1970s passed from history to give rise to… you know, what we have now.


  3. Again this? crying or gurgling not give any consent, either in babies, animals or young children, they are not aware of the act, you believe that children are a kind of adults they believe that children with months have sexuality… you want me to explain? you’ll never understand anyway.

    Parents (these beings as “loving beings” as you call them), treat children like dolls, but it is normal, are degenerate adultophiles, they are animals not know that love and pure sex, but that does not mean that pedophiles re-invent childhood to believe that sexuality explicit with small children is fine.

    On the issue of pornography (especially adult porn, but all), I pray for a plague to bring this scourge of this planet, a person viewing pornography can never get grace and salvation, but do not worry, child porn will soon be legal if they have already legalized almost all perversions of this souless filthy world.


    1. Thanks for your response to my article TNSO

      >”Again this? crying or gurgling not give any consent, either in babies, animals or young children, they are not aware of the act, you believe that children are a kind of adults they believe that children with months have sexuality… ”

      Have you observed a baby being suckled by its mother? Usually it does so very happily and you can tell by its body language and the noises it makes that it is happy and wants to continue suckling. If the mother stops offering her breast before the baby’s had enough the baby may start crying. The baby is clearly expressing a wish for the activity to continue.

      You don’t need to reflect and cogitate to give simple consent – all you need is to be aware of what is pleasing to you and what isn’t, and to be able to express a wish for that activity to continue or not continue. The flip-side of the coin is watching a baby having something done to it which it doesn’t like – my little brother used to hate being left face down on the floor and he would let you know with his furious howls that he didn’t consent to having that done to him.

      Granted that ‘Simple Consent’ isn’t always enough – though it is for most interactions between a parent and a baby, and despite the fact that parents often have to over-ride the baby’s expressions of (non-)consent. But why is it ok for a mother to stick a nipple in a baby’s mouth and the baby to consent to that, but not for that same woman to stick a nipple into the mouth of a willing and eager ten-year-old boy? Is the only difference that the baby (in theory) doesn’t get a sexual kick from having the nipple in his mouth whilst the boy does?

      If that is the only difference then you’ll have to explain why getting a sexual kick out of an activity should invalidate any consent a child might give to that activity.

      >”but that does not mean that pedophiles re-invent childhood to believe that sexuality explicit with small children is fine.”

      You’ll have to explain why (outside the context of a society which stigmatises such relationships) it’s not fine.


      1. No, the difference is that the 10 year old (generally) is aware of the act, and decide for yourself do it or not, the baby (even a toddler) does not, is not aware of the act, has no memory or conception the sexuality and reality, they do not “consent” all acts that are made with them are forced, but are respected for the benefit of the child, eg as not starve, not for the satisfaction of a person, but that does not it eminently wrong, sexuality can be a kind of game, but babies and small children are not sexual anyway, and are aware of the act, but please do not compare a pubescent boy with a baby, are not even in the same galaxy.

        I repeat, I have a right to my privacy and my body, nobody has a right to get me photos or have sex with me when I was not aware of it (before puberty generally), I’m glad I never had sex ever before puberty, but I curse the world every day by not having sex at puberty, and the same with the photos, I hate them, I wish my family had never take any photo of me, so if parents take pictures of their children to me is irrelevant, I hate to parents, in any case they are also abusers (and they are).

        You remember your childhood, you remember something when you were 4 years old? really with 6 years old you wanted sex? Were you conscious when you were a baby?

        So I think that pedophilia is not “fine”, so all of you to see prepubertal boys or girls with distant mystery and, therefore, you are always trying to understand the “distance” … and that’s because are not in the same level, that does not happen to us hebephiles, there is no mystery to us, I fully understand girls of 12 years, are quite close to my level.

        You know what the difference between hebephilia and pedophilia? I can have a serious relationship with a pubescent, I can ask her “will you be my girlfriend?” “want to make love to me?” and he / she understood perfectly, I want sex with a body developed for that, for this, nature it gives them their secondary sexual characteristics, I want to talk to someone with his mind developed, something that never happens to pedophiles, always your sex and relationship with children will be a bastardized and disfuncional version of the rest (and no, adultophiles do not love, as their sex is unnatural, although they are full developed, they are animals, they do not count, anyway).

        Anyway … the [prepubescent] children have almost no sexual hormones, nor have secondary sexual characteristics [primaries are not sexual until puberty, anyway] and do not have a developed mind to fully understand an sexual act … well everyone knows to go out there naked with diapers is hot and sexy, it will be that we need “thugatrophile” glasses to see… stupid korephile of me!


  4. From the Encyclopaedia Britannica: pornography, derived from the Greek porni (“prostitute”) and graphein (“to write”), was originally defined as any work of art or literature depicting the life of prostitutes, but now is deemed to mean the representation of sexual behaviour in books, pictures, statues, motion pictures, and other media that is intended to cause sexual excitement.

    Freedom of speech: the right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. Obscene (sexually explicit) materials: offensive or disgusting materials by accepted standards of morality and decency, and not considered speech, as the materials do not communicate opinions and ideas.

    When does art become pornography? Always strange to me that it does not take much for a work of art to be termed obscene, and thus implicitly fail to communicate opinions and ideas.

    Take Balthus’s painting The Guitar Lesson (1934), judged obscene pornography by art galleries in both New York and in Paris, contains spectacular visual imagery that raises many questions, such as: Is the young girl pupil, whose pelvic bone is thrust upward and her pudenda thrust forward, grabbing the fabric of her music teacher’s dress in a desperate attempt to stop herself from falling? Or has she deliberately denuded her teacher’s breast out of lust, or out of clear and conscious longing? Would she like to finger the teacher’s erect nipple? Has she been forced to straddle the woman’s lap, or is she there by choice? Is the teacher seducing the girl or chastising her? Is this retribution for the girl’s sexual impulses and advances? Is the teacher gleefully introducing her protégée to a world of violent pleasure?

    Take von Gloeden’s (1856-1931) work: several thousand images of naked Sicilian boys and youths photographed (with the full consent of the boy’s families) from the end of the 19th century. The commercial production and sale of these images helped make Taormina, where von Gloeden was based, a primary tourist destination of choice for the rich and famous of the day: the King of Siam, Oscar Wilde, Andre Gide, Rudyard Kipling, … Five years after von Gloeden’s death, Mussolini’s government together with the Vatican, began a vice campaign. The photographic legacy housed at Taormina, fell foul to the campaign. Two-thirds of von Gloeden’s work (mostly irreplaceable negatives) was smashed in fascist police raids because it was labelled obscene pornography.

    For me, the two artists above have produced works of art that resonate deep within me. I am sure the resonance begins when I first glimpse a representation of the erotic side to a child. As a minor-attracted person, and male, I am turned on by erotic imagery, especially imagery with subject matter such as that discussed above. I would go further and suggest that most adult males who participate in naturist gatherings where families are present, are lying whenever they say they never have any sexual thoughts when confronted with the nudity of a child.

    In sum, I find a naked child exploring his or her sexuality utterly beautiful, not obscene, and it has got beyond high time that child sexuality and nudity be ‘normalised’ within families, in schools, and across society. Surely, the frequency with which ‘sexting’ occurs, youngsters have a natural propensity to express their sexuality with other consenting humans; this should be encouraged. To punish such behaviour is against nature and signals fascism.


    1. Thanks for that, feinmann0.

      Balthus’s The Guitar Lesson is quite a provocative painting – and like all good art it can take you in all kinds of directions and each time one looks at it one feels one is seeing it for the first time.

      What I see when I look a this painting is that the girl has become a substitute for the guitar. The guitar is an instrument with a feminine form which one tickles, scratches and fondles with one’s fingers, and one sits it across one’s lap like a child. It’s interesting that the chair in which the teacher is sitting is probably has the worst-shape possible for playing the classical guitar in – and no sign of a footstool anywhere! Is Balthus maybe hinting that there had never really been any intention of any guitar playing taking place?

      I wasn’t aware of the destruction of the von Gloeden negatives – what a terrible act of ignorance and vandalism. I’m only faintly familiar with his work. You’d have to divide the ages of the boys he shows by a half or even a third before they become interesting to me. He seems to have done some wonderful portraits of Sicilian little girls (for whom I’ve a special fondness) but, maybe because it was acceptable for adolescent boys to go naked but not prepubescent girls, he doesn’t seem to have done any nude photos of them.

      >”In sum, I find a naked child exploring his or her sexuality utterly beautiful, not obscene, and it has got beyond high time that child sexuality and nudity be ‘normalised’ within families, in schools, and across society.”

      I quite agree. It would be great to live in a society where seeing a child discovering and exploring his or her sexuality was considered the delightful thing it is, rather than something troubling to be hidden away. And also in a society that recognised that child sexuality wasn’t a black and white thing – that it’s not either ‘ready to fuck’ or ‘innocent angel’. The sexual expression of very young children is fascinating, and is probably often too elusive for anyone with negative ideas to child sexuality to notice.

      There’s a lovely video of a toddler girl who has, for the first time, just seen a boy peeing – and she goes round her house joyfully laughing and pretending to pee like a boy. One sees there a child extending her understanding of sexuality – I find it a very beautiful video. I’ll go see if I can find it…

      … here it is:


  5. Well…kids are not so much participating in ‘porn’ as such; However Youtube is full of videos that are uploaded by kids themselves — They then perform mild sex-acts, Then find they’ve been flagged, Or they take them down because they don’t like the comments etc …but at least for the start they have agency over the videos, People who flag these videos are deluded in thinking they are ‘protecting’ them somehow, But in doing that, They are removing the work of these kids without consulting them. As a libertarian viewing anything on the Net should be legal — Any illegal activity could be reported without fear of being reported yourself.


........................... PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT........................... comments from the outraged will be approved only if they are polite and address issues raised in the accompanying article or discussion. The 'email' field can be left blank.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s