I have an “umm what about” regarding “of all ages.”
Say a 15 year old girl decides to walk topless down main street. Is everyone on that street who has a security camera running going to be convicted of making child porn?
I don’t trust the legislature to have been competent enough to edit the rest of the code to reflect that change nor do I trust the thin blue line punisher sticker crowd to pass up something they can portray as a crime.
- am I the one doing that? And 2. Is it the bulk of the problem?
Me personally, I have no particular need for legislated prudishness. I don’t see much of a difference between the Taliban requiring women to wear a headscarf than whatever red state requiring women to wear a top. A lot of that nonsense is done to enforce a particular religion, and I personally want all religions to be thrown in the toilet with all the other worthless assgarbage.
There was a point in time when things such as bikinis and miniskirts were seen as scandalously immodest. The people who saw them that way are mostly dead now and we can move on, which is what will ultimately happen here. Some women will start going topless to the beach, the newspapers will write some stories about it, there’ll be some arrests, there will be some court cases, there will be some laws passed, and then it’ll settle in as just a thing people do sometimes.
The problem I have is that I think people with cameras are going to be punished for incidentally filming topless girls in ways they’re not for incidentally filming topless boys. Shall I illustrate with an example?
Consider this video of a walking tour of Panama City Beach, Florida. . There are a lot of videos like this, tours of various places around the world, they’re filmed in public places, often from streets, sidewalks etc. There’s a lengthy segment where the cameraperson walks down the beach and records several boys and men without shirts on. The video is on Youtube, uncensored and monetized. No one anywhere has a problem with this because we categorically do not consider male barechestedness to be nudity.
The argument here is women and girls should be allowed to be barechested anywhere men and boys are. Okay, so the instant we make that change, we also need to change the rules that say it’s not okay to see, photograph, record or broadcast barechested women and girls. It needs to be equally okay to upload pictures of barechested women and girls to Youtube without censor bars or blurs. Because then it becomes “when he does it it’s not nudity, when she does it, it’s not considered nudity but it is still in fact nudity.” You don’t get to require people in public to avert their gaze.
There is no such thing as child porn as porn requires consent, it’s called child sexual exploitation materials.
To answer your question seriously, no. Having pictures or videos of a 15 year olds breast is not by default porn, it’s only porn once it’s in a sexual context.
Does “in a sexual context” have a falsifiable definition? I mean, here’s an article from the American Bar Association journal about a man who was arrested and deported for “child sexual abuse” for having photos printed of himself kissing his infant daughter after a bath.
The accuser was the photo lab tech. After the man was arrested and deported, his wife was arrested, their child was removed from them, then the investigation took the whole roll of film into consideration and found there was no child abuse, this was photographic evidence of loving parents caring for their child. “Sexual context” indeed.
I envision a future where a business owner puts up security cameras around his shop, those security cameras send their video to “The Cloud,” an underage girl walks by topless in view of those video cameras, as is her legal right to do so, a closed-source unauditable CSAM detection algorithm running on “The Cloud” flags the video as CSAM, and the business owner gets arrested, his business and/or home destroyed or even killed before an investigation determines no wrongdoing. Because we put the time for reasonableness after the bodies have cooled. We check to see if it’s a false positive after the “arrest” has been made. THAT’s the ultimate problem I have here.
So… if i would look at it … O nice i know that store she walks by = pic is safe O nice tits i gonna jerk off to it = pic is porn ?
Than one pic can be porn for one and safe for an other. I must be missing something.
Intent
Was the picture taken for sexual intent?
Security camera taking a video of a topless 15 year old intent was not produce a pornographic image.
You as the security guard saving the picture of later…your intent is to make it sexual.
Now if you saved the picture because you needed to figure out which store the topless 15 year old was by. Your intent is to not make it sexual so that would be fine.
Same in Ontario.
“wIfE mAtErIaL”
Good luck even scraping the bottom of the barrel, but I guess the Karens and the crazy ones gotta have “a breadwinner” too right I mean when you get out of moms basement and get a job.
I wonder what problems you have that you have to try to boast about your so isn’t going topless outside?
Weird.
It’s not what you said. You’re allowed to have preferences and you’re allowed to have your own beliefs about modesty, and to be with someone that shares in those beliefs. It’s the way you said it that reveals shitty attitude towards women. You imply that all women should act in accordance to your beliefs and that they are somehow lesser for not being up to your wifey material standards. The world doesn’t need conform to you. You’re weirdly judgy and you’ll probably get mad that others are judging you and your opinion but you can’t be shitty and not expect people to be shitty back.
They can’t find partners because MEN ARE AWFUL. Men (especially young men) are swinging so hard into fascism. Meanwhile, women are swinging the other way; or maybe standing still while the Overton window is dragged away from them. If you are looking for a man under 30, and you are not also a man under 30, you are fucked.
You might have just as well pointed at all the young fascists who can’t find tradwives because they are so fucking toxic. Blaming women is arbitrary.
We found an incel in the wild, holy fuck. Just as pathetic as we had been led to believe!
Hmmm it’s almost as if men’s opinion on this matter shouldn’t matter nearly as much as women’s
We dont want to marry a 304.
Plenty of "304"s ARE married. Sorry to disappoint.
a pandemic of single females
This is so funny to me, because single women are overall happier than married women, and for very good reasons.
This is far from being a pandemic. It’s a liberation… from shitty men like you, who insist that they’re the prize, simply because they are men. This has been a looooonnnggg time coming.
Maybe you’re not familiar with many women, but they’re definitely not single because of a lack of options
They are all hard working family men. It don’t get better than that! Their wives dont think showing her tits in public is a good thing either.
If a woman taking her breats out in public is enough for you guys to only reduce her to only “fun” is disgusting
Just because you still live in Mommy and Daddy’s basement, doesn’t mean you have a family. More like, a family is still stuck with you!
Tits are not sex organs.
The prohibition on public exposure of breasts by women and girls over 10 years old is now gone from the city code as of this week.
I never thought I’d be conflicted on this, because I am absolutely of the opinion that female breasts and nipples shouldn’t be treated as exclusively sexual body parts, especially since men have them too and we aren’t held to that standard.
But being confronted with the idea that 10-17 year old girls can now bare their breasts in public without restraint reminds me that treating female bodies as non-sexual is great as an ethos, but it is not reflective of reality, and that this specifically could be problematic.
But how to solve it? You can’t make it an 18+ only rule, or you’re further entrenching the idea that female breasts are exclusively sexual and adult, but if you let teens and tweens go topless, they will be sexualized / ogled / photographed by adult men, and that’s a bad precedent to set as acceptable. We usually treat photographs of underage female breasts as a form of CSAM, but can we still say that if we’re treating female breasts as non-sexual? This is an interesting new line to draw, given societal attitudes on adolescent nudity.
Regretfully, I believe that the true problem is men. The reason women have to cover their breasts is because they have to protect themselves from men. I’m all for bodily liberation and the de-sexualization of female existence, but we need an overhaul on our society’s attitudes towards women in general if we’re going to get there. Maybe bare breasts help get us there. Maybe girls need to learn the right way how to kick a man in the balls before they go topless.
You are inventing a problem that does not exist. Go take a walk where it is allowed and see how many girls are walking topless in the street.
It’s not necessarily because they don’t want to. It’s because in North American culture, it invites harassment. And then people like many of those posting in this thread will just say that they asked for it. So of fucking course women don’t go topless in public.
This is a western society problem, in tribes where women don’t cover their breasts the men are interested in other parts.
These fucking 304s walking around with their exposed ankles will never find a husband. How will they live without a husband to get a bank account for them? They’ll die miserable and destitute, and they’ll deserve it.
And I’m not an incel for saying so, because I have a kid! Checkmate, cucks!
So you feel that women should be arrested and prosecutable if their nipples are exposed?
That’s very misogynist. And no, you can’t argue for the law to “save the women” from all those perverts. Because the whole point of this is to free women from the bullshit laws that allows society to prosecute them while pulling double duty by effectively shaming their bodies.
Most women are not going to run around topless voluntarily. But, even if they did - say a group of girls or women decided to go skinny dipping or whatever at a lake, do you really believe they should go to jail for that?
Don’t mansplane and tell everyone these laws are for women’s own good, because they aren’t. Inventing this bizarre photographic scenario is just bizarre. It’s a fiction of your imagination and is a straw man argument.
You are correct that the true problem is men, but not how you think it is.
The true problem is not a problem, it’s the reality of human sexuality where most men and some women see female breasts as sexual most of time.
There are different situations where nudity of all kinds is not perceived sexually, that doesn’t affect the general rule that I shouldn’t run around the block all naked.
Saying it’s not equal because men too have nipples and those are not perceived as sexual is kinda strange. Let’s abolish pregnancy leaves then. Gender may be a social construct by now, sex is obviously not, and (most) humans are not hermaphrodites, so the rules can’t be the same.
This is a nothing burger of a subject frankly, we already know that real world doesn’t fit ideal ideas. If some ideal idea would describe the real world, then you’d only need that ideal idea to know it all and other information wouldn’t matter. Some religious fanatics are actually trying, destroying all the knowledge and art not coming from their holy book.
This doesn’t work, the real world is as complex as all the information in it. An action is good or bad only in a particular real situation.
Which is also why choosing a seemingly ideal enough principle and trying to fit it to everything, pretending that makes everyone equal, is a lie.
Women are allowed to walk around in sandals and no shoes at the beach despite foot fetishes being one of the most common paraphilias(behind breasts.)
You don’t see women getting accosted by guys who like feet because they have their toes out and it’s sexual to some guy nearby.
If dudes into feet can control themselves and be respectful then so can dudes into breasts when they are near a top less woman in public.
To answer your question, it could be legal grey area because not all pictures depicting nudity are automatically considered pornographic, if you are speaking in terms of legal precedent regarding obscenity in the US.
To further muddy the issue, photographing other peoples kids is considered creepy by nearly everyone but it isn’t expressly illegal unless certain localities have specific statutes against it. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, so you have the potential situation where people are doing a presumptively legal activity in a public area where photographing that activity could be illegal depending on… intent?
Further, the courts have ruled that getting naked in public in the act of protesting something is part of protected speech. Presumably that applies to people of all ages and sexes as well but I doubt it has ever been tested.
Comments like this are why I left reddit. This is a completely hinged and totally reasonable thought process that calls in a question, a lot of facets of the issue and ways them against each other appropriately. Maybe something more crazy would spark a bunch more replies but I totally like that Lemmy is a place that just lets people be normal.
