# Nude 17 Year Old Girls: Child Porn or Art? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 22, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289 "2003-01-22T21:14:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/21 "2003-02-20T03:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FDISK \* > **There’s clearly no “art” component to these photos** I take it, you’ve seen the photos ? Can you link to them ? In any case, I’ll assume an invisible IMHO before that quote. ---
**Author:** ![plain\_jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@plain\_jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plain_jane)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/22 "2003-02-20T06:00:27Z")
Yeah, really, why didn’t he just photograph girls one year older? Not that I condone his behaviour (let me photograph you naked, and I’ll get you modelling jobs! Yeah, sure, jerk.) And I remember being 17 years old. I made a lot of decisions I wouldn’t make even a few years down the road. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/23 "2003-02-20T08:12:33Z")
There are hundreds and hundreds of websits out there with sexual pictures of girls that are purported to be under 18, but they have clothes on (often sheer clothing, or wet clothing, with nipples and other parts barely covered by stickers or well placed arms). These are not illegal, apparently. I would not judge until I had seen the pictures. American society is ill when it comes to things of this nature. I can walk into my local Tower, and pick up a car magazine that I KNOW often has pictures of girls that are 17 lifting their shirts. But it’s a European magazine, so it’s ok I guess. Art is different to everyone. I’ve had some ideas of pictures of my daughter that would involve her being nude, or in fairy wings or some such (but I’m not a photographer, so I don’t bother). Her lines are great, but I wouldn’t do it even if I had the skills, because it’s the last thing I would need. I have a friend who does body painting… he’s lech, and I have found him to try to lay any chick he can get his hands on. But when he’s painting, it’s different… it’s art, and his whole demeanor changes. It’s all about trying to capture the vision in his head… I didn’t believe it till I saw it for myself. These laws, IMHO, have to much leeway. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/24 "2003-02-20T10:41:22Z")
in the UK a girl can pose topless on page 3 from the age of 16. they often do. i do think it’s a bit odd to have the age of consent lower than the one regarding nude photography. either raise one or lower the other, everything else seems hypocritical. if a guy can’t be charged with statutory rape because one law says the girl can give consent, but he can be charged with child pornography because another says she can’t it’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![MisterThyristor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecccb3/32.png) [@MisterThyristor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MisterThyristor)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/25 "2003-02-20T10:50:29Z")
Here’s the part of the law that bothers me – “matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child less than eighteen (18) years of age” – especially the “depicts or describes” part. That could include printed text, right? So anyone possessing a copy of _Lolita_, for example, could be charged with a felony? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/26 "2003-02-20T13:25:39Z")
In the USA it has been pretty much resolved that _text_ is safe in this context. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/27 "2003-02-20T13:43:07Z")
I get kind of irked that people hyperventilate and shout “child pronography” when it’s someone in their upper teens. Minors, yes. Shouldn’t be messing with them? Abosolutely. But don’t tar people with the pedo tag for relations with someone who is, physically speaking, not a child, but more or less in the form of an adult. I think sex with a minor and pedophilia are very different. Both wrong (and rightfully against the law), but very different. ---
**Author:** ![Skott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Skott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skott)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/28 "2003-02-20T18:23:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tristan \* > **There are hundreds and hundreds of websits out there with sexual pictures of girls that are purported to be under 18, but they have clothes on (often sheer clothing, or wet clothing, with nipples and other parts barely covered by stickers or well placed arms). These are not illegal, apparently.** According to (20/20, 48 Hours, Primetime, Dateline, don’t remember which), there are Congresspeople who are trying to make these websites illegal (i.e. erotic poses by clothed minors). I think they face an uphill battle though. ---
**Author:** ![prisoner6655321](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@prisoner6655321](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/prisoner6655321)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/29 "2003-02-20T19:00:27Z")
> [@](#): > > JRDelirious wrote: > In the USA it has been pretty much resolved that text is safe in this context. > about… > > > [@](#): > > > > posted by MisterThyristor > > So anyone possessing a copy of Lolita, for example, could be charged with a felony? I think MisterThyristor’s talking about the Lolita movies. > [@](#): > > plain\_jane wrote: > And I remember being 17 years old. I made a lot of decisions I wouldn’t make even a few years down the road. Jane, do you also remember when you were 18 and you made decisions you wouldn’t have made when you were 20? The age 17 seems pretty arbitrary to me. But that’s just IMHO, of course. I don’t think these sites are illegal unless it is the intention to sexually arouse anyone. A lot of the legalese isn’t defined. What about nude baby pictures? Are they illegal as well? That coppertone ad with the dog pulling down the pants of the toddler… is that child porn? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/30 "2003-02-20T19:56:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > **Child porn is an emotional issue, so logic flies out the window.** Ummmm, no, it doesn’t. In all the posts inthis thread, I’ve seen a lot of logic. There is a logic behind the laws, and a complete lack of logic by the photographer. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > \*\* The law says anyone under 18 is a minor a nude pictures are porn. Period. No exceptions._\* Wrong again. Re-read **Robb’s** fine post about the actual law. Or you can look it up [here.](http://www.state.in.us/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch4.html) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > **Logically, \*\* H8\_2\_W8,** you can make a case that this is a bit silly – the girls can have sex but can’t pose for photos._\* It is a touch odd. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > \*\* But the law does not allow for exceptions, and any DA who doesn’t throw the book at someone is perceived as weak Plus it’s an easy case to get an conviction on, making the DA look good. So whether or not it makes sense, if you do it, you’re going down._\* Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > \*\*However, any adult should be aware of the social climate. Having anything to do with nude photos of a minor is playing with dynamite and it’s just plain stupid to knowingly take those photos or even download them onto your computer. \*\* Hey, we agree. ---
**Author:** ![Alereon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@Alereon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alereon)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/31 "2003-02-20T20:53:53Z")
**Gyan9** : No, I have not seen the photos. The guy was collecting nude photos of girls by telling them he would get them modelling jobs. Art can contain nudity, but nudity in-and-of-itself is not art. If he were making art, I think he would have identified it as such to the girls in question. Anyway, yeah, assume an invisible IMHO, seeing as we’re IN IMHO:) ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/32 "2003-02-20T20:59:17Z")
i think its sad, cuz some girls will get fat by the time they’re 18 and we dont get to see their photos 🙂 sorry, i just don’t care about the moral aspect of it 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/33 "2003-02-20T23:38:31Z")
While I disagree with the laws in question, I’ve got to say it isn’t exactly a hard one to follow. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/34 "2003-02-21T00:28:53Z")
[ul] **You gotta draw the** [/ul] **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** [ul] **SOMEWHERE!** [/ul] ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2003, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/35 "2003-02-21T00:29:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by An Arky \* > \*\*I get kind of irked that people hyperventilate and shout “child pronography” when it’s someone in their upper teens. Minors, yes. Shouldn’t be messing with them? Abosolutely. But don’t tar people with the pedo tag for relations with someone who is, physically speaking, not a child, but more or less in the form of an adult. I think sex with a minor and pedophilia are very different. Both wrong (and rightfully against the law), but very different. \*\* Like I said, this is a simple intelligence test. This works for the the “child” as well. Hey, girlie, why dont you take off your clothes so I can sponsor you to model …clothes. :smack: They may _look_ adult, they may even be physically adult, but they are NOT adult. Wait the year. If you dont like labeling them Pedophiles why dont we label them something more accurate… Dumbass ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/36 "2003-02-21T00:45:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance \* > \*\*RT, I’m not fooling here… > > Torch that book, buddy. I’m not promoting censorship here…but that’s trouble with a capital T. \*\* I’m going to disagree here. If it was so illegal, i wouldn’t be able to walk into the local Boarders and buy Jacques Sturges books. (or however his name is spelled. that dude who has books with nudist kids in it). Also, i have National Geographics with pictures of kids who are naked. The difference is the bodies are not being exploited sexually (although i have my doubts about Sturges motivations, if that lady who claims they had sex while she was 15 is telling the truth.) I’d try to get cites for this, but i am at work, and would probably get fired faster than Google could load the results page (deservedly so) ---
**Author:** ![Skott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Skott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skott)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/37 "2003-02-21T01:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > **…[T]hey may even be physically adult, but they are NOT adult.** Well, if you’re speaking that they are not an adult according to the state law, then that is rather arbitrary, isn’t it? If you took them to different countries, they _would_ be a legal adult. The law is arbitrary and the only thing that truely defines an “adult” is being able to have children. ---
**Author:** ![plain\_jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@plain\_jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plain_jane)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2003, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/38 "2003-02-21T03:51:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by prisoner6655321 \* > \*\* Jane, do you also remember when you were 18 and you made decisions you wouldn’t have made when you were 20? \*\* [/QUOTE] Definitely. I suppose there are two things that bother me: he likely knew the girls were considered under-age where he lives; and the fact he promised them modelling jobs. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/39 "2003-02-21T04:16:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FDISK \* > **nudity in-and-of-itself is not art.** Since we’re in IMHO… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2003, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289/40 "2003-02-21T08:13:10Z")
**Skott** - Again, the problem comes up in defining what is “Sexually alluring”? I’ve seen a lot of the photo’s that I’ve refered to above, and in most of them it’s just a big busted girl in a swimsuit or a wet shirt with well placed pockets grinning with her arms in the air. I didn’t consider them erotic, and after seeing that the majority of the pics were just variations on that theme, I got bored. Hell, if I didn’t think it would cause a problem with some of the mods, I would post a URL or two. They are exceedingly tame, IMHO. I have a lady friend who has been working up a modeling career (or is at least trying to). She has been told by more than one photographer that her unwillingness to do “glamour” shots is going to be a handicap. So maybe there is some basis for what he’s said… who knows. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nude-17-year-old-girls-child-porn-or-art/150289.md?page=3)