Topic Archived
What do you think?
Notifications OFFPost deleted by user
I agree with you. The context is very important to the terminology as is nature of the offence itself, especially when reporting.
I 100% agree this is a blanket charge of a blanket crime whether it's 1 image or molested a child your tarred with the same brush and the law needs to change, social media has changed drastically and people are being caught out with what's being sent to them.
The crime itself comes under a huge umbrella and something needs to break it down.
The crime itself comes under a huge umbrella and something needs to break it down.
The thing I find really peculiar is the difference in the age of consent being 16 and the age of 18 for communication or IIOC.
I think about some of the young boys who have been arrested for communication or IIOC of their peers. People they know and are the same age as, so it is developmentally appropriate for them to be interested in one another. They can have sex at 16 legally if consent is given but can't then discuss the sex in a written conversation or send each other 'nudes', which I'm sure most people know, MANY teenagers do this.
It's the one thing I've really struggled to get my head around since being on this journey. I even think back to when I was still 17, I definitely sent some images I shouldn't have and received some too. Never once did I think I'd done something illegal because I was over the age of consent.
I really do wonder why there is a difference and I even asked the OIC of my OH's case and he couldn't give me answer as to why. It's probably something I'll never know and will always boggle me.
I think about some of the young boys who have been arrested for communication or IIOC of their peers. People they know and are the same age as, so it is developmentally appropriate for them to be interested in one another. They can have sex at 16 legally if consent is given but can't then discuss the sex in a written conversation or send each other 'nudes', which I'm sure most people know, MANY teenagers do this.
It's the one thing I've really struggled to get my head around since being on this journey. I even think back to when I was still 17, I definitely sent some images I shouldn't have and received some too. Never once did I think I'd done something illegal because I was over the age of consent.
I really do wonder why there is a difference and I even asked the OIC of my OH's case and he couldn't give me answer as to why. It's probably something I'll never know and will always boggle me.
Hi,
I think your point is valid. For me there is a major grey area in 16/17 year olds because they are above the age of consent for actual sexual activity but cannot consent or send pictures of themselves or their partners as this breaks the law.
It is difficult because when you have guidelines that are open to interpretation you will always find people who will take those guidelines and run with them (the cases of images that have been categorised as iioc but were intended to be funny and cases where images of people's own children as babies or toddlers were noted during investigation). A difficulty comes into this as intent as hard to prove and the police want a conviction from an investigation, they have their targets and budgets to account for.
Yesterday after I'd bathed my toddler she decided to dance around with nothing on, I thought for a minute that it was something hilarious to have a memory of but my photos and videos are automatically stored on the cloud and I wouldn't take the risk of someone not seeing the intention behind it.
In terms of category A images of different ages being less "bad" I can't agree with you if the child involved is below the age of consent as it is still abuse and all children have the right to be protected xx
I think your point is valid. For me there is a major grey area in 16/17 year olds because they are above the age of consent for actual sexual activity but cannot consent or send pictures of themselves or their partners as this breaks the law.
It is difficult because when you have guidelines that are open to interpretation you will always find people who will take those guidelines and run with them (the cases of images that have been categorised as iioc but were intended to be funny and cases where images of people's own children as babies or toddlers were noted during investigation). A difficulty comes into this as intent as hard to prove and the police want a conviction from an investigation, they have their targets and budgets to account for.
Yesterday after I'd bathed my toddler she decided to dance around with nothing on, I thought for a minute that it was something hilarious to have a memory of but my photos and videos are automatically stored on the cloud and I wouldn't take the risk of someone not seeing the intention behind it.
In terms of category A images of different ages being less "bad" I can't agree with you if the child involved is below the age of consent as it is still abuse and all children have the right to be protected xx
Post deleted by user
I think legal porn also doesn't help.
If you go on any legal porn site, you will find tons of legal videos where adult actors are role playing an illegal scenario (eg stepfather stepdaughter). I think it desensitises some men and makes them receptive to illegal videos with underage people on platforms like kik.
If you go on any legal porn site, you will find tons of legal videos where adult actors are role playing an illegal scenario (eg stepfather stepdaughter). I think it desensitises some men and makes them receptive to illegal videos with underage people on platforms like kik.
I'm not offended at all. I think again it comes down to intent, the images made and circulated by teenagers are different in intent to those made and circulated by adults for other adults. I too had consensual sex before 16 with a partner who was the same age but there were also others in my year who were in "relationships" with people who were in their late twenties and while they may have felt mature enough to be on a par with these men there is no way that they were.
The power imbalance that happens between adults and teenagers is a big factor in abuse. Those intending on abusing will often offer teens things like alcohol, cigarettes or drugs in order to make them feel like they view them as equals.
I do agree that the popularity of cameras on phones has increased the number of teens unknowingly committing these offences. I also think that your partners case is different to someone who has intentionally sought out iioc or communicated sexually with minors.
These are just my thoughts and I can understand that your views come from a place of personal experience as a teen xx
The power imbalance that happens between adults and teenagers is a big factor in abuse. Those intending on abusing will often offer teens things like alcohol, cigarettes or drugs in order to make them feel like they view them as equals.
I do agree that the popularity of cameras on phones has increased the number of teens unknowingly committing these offences. I also think that your partners case is different to someone who has intentionally sought out iioc or communicated sexually with minors.
These are just my thoughts and I can understand that your views come from a place of personal experience as a teen xx
Hi Always - Upsetting thread
The categories of photos are as follows:
Cat A Images involving penetrative sex, Cat B images involving non-penentrative sexual activity, Cat C indecent images not fall into categories A or B. Sentencing is decided by aggravting factors, such as Age/vulnerability of child, pain of distress, moving images, child known to the offender, child drugged, large no of victims.
I found a memory stick of my ex which had all of these images on, he also had normal porn. I can assure you after seeing some, that you can easily tell porn with adults from IIOC. There seems to be a thread on here sometimes that as it's pictures it not as bad as communication, now while communication is considered worse as they are trying to meet up with a minor both are illegal and these men are adults and they understand that.
Normal porn is with consenting adults (hopefully) who are aware of what they are doing and wish to do this. There are lots of porn with women dressing up as school children however this should never be used as an excuse for any man to want to seek out pictures of underage children. The children in these pictures are not acting nor are they adults posing as children. As you can see from the description why Cat A are bad and why 1 Cat A will mean a sentence, however all of these images are bad and it doesn't meant that if someone had Cat C photos this isn't as bad.
I wish that other people on here could have seen those photos and maybe there would be less of "its only pictures". The victims here are the children who have been kidnapped, abused and killed so that people can look at these photos. It is illegal for a reason and should never be minimised and can we stop blaming the police for it being a decoy or because they have to get their arrest rates up. It's this simple if they weren't looking they wouldn't get caught it is no-one's fault except them. There is a few people on here whose OH have got NFA or have accidentally downloaded but not many. There are a few people here whose other half's have abused or have done this offence again, or have admitted to being attracted (look in the past threads). Now this isn't everyone but can we look at this with our eyes wide open and not be naive.
The partners often lie to their other half and the only way to find out the truth is to get full disclosure from your partner or go to court to hear the evidence. I speak as one who is three years from this nightmare.
Bereft
The categories of photos are as follows:
Cat A Images involving penetrative sex, Cat B images involving non-penentrative sexual activity, Cat C indecent images not fall into categories A or B. Sentencing is decided by aggravting factors, such as Age/vulnerability of child, pain of distress, moving images, child known to the offender, child drugged, large no of victims.
I found a memory stick of my ex which had all of these images on, he also had normal porn. I can assure you after seeing some, that you can easily tell porn with adults from IIOC. There seems to be a thread on here sometimes that as it's pictures it not as bad as communication, now while communication is considered worse as they are trying to meet up with a minor both are illegal and these men are adults and they understand that.
Normal porn is with consenting adults (hopefully) who are aware of what they are doing and wish to do this. There are lots of porn with women dressing up as school children however this should never be used as an excuse for any man to want to seek out pictures of underage children. The children in these pictures are not acting nor are they adults posing as children. As you can see from the description why Cat A are bad and why 1 Cat A will mean a sentence, however all of these images are bad and it doesn't meant that if someone had Cat C photos this isn't as bad.
I wish that other people on here could have seen those photos and maybe there would be less of "its only pictures". The victims here are the children who have been kidnapped, abused and killed so that people can look at these photos. It is illegal for a reason and should never be minimised and can we stop blaming the police for it being a decoy or because they have to get their arrest rates up. It's this simple if they weren't looking they wouldn't get caught it is no-one's fault except them. There is a few people on here whose OH have got NFA or have accidentally downloaded but not many. There are a few people here whose other half's have abused or have done this offence again, or have admitted to being attracted (look in the past threads). Now this isn't everyone but can we look at this with our eyes wide open and not be naive.
The partners often lie to their other half and the only way to find out the truth is to get full disclosure from your partner or go to court to hear the evidence. I speak as one who is three years from this nightmare.
Bereft
I don't think anyone on here is saying that "it's only pictures" and that these images aren't bad. Of course not!
The way I understand this thread is that the severity of the picture depends on many different factors. One of them is the age of the victim depicted.
The point that I tried to make in my previous post is that legal pornography is quite dodgy and disgusting sometimes and it can desensitise some people to look at illegal stuff. This is an opinion shared by many professionals by the way.
Of course it's not an excuse and it doesn't mean that the perpetrators should be left off the hook - this is why we have our criminal justice system that punishes these men.
The way I understand this thread is that the severity of the picture depends on many different factors. One of them is the age of the victim depicted.
The point that I tried to make in my previous post is that legal pornography is quite dodgy and disgusting sometimes and it can desensitise some people to look at illegal stuff. This is an opinion shared by many professionals by the way.
Of course it's not an excuse and it doesn't mean that the perpetrators should be left off the hook - this is why we have our criminal justice system that punishes these men.
Bereft
You make some good points about minimisation and people not wanting to believe that this has really happened, which is actually a defence mechanism for dealing with a very traumatic situation.
But I want to pick up one thing, which is the idea that children are being kidnapped and killed to produce these images. That almost never happens. I've only ever read about one such case, where images were involved. This reinforces the idea of stranger danger, but that is misleading.
The vast majority of images, now 90% according to the IWF, are self generated. That means children at home, sending pictures of themselves over the internet, albeit to complete strangers, but not the monsters that we read about in the papers.
In terms of contact abuse, that is still mostly committed by adults known to the child or the childs family, although communication cases have definately increased, and we know that the police have increased their use of decoys.
The cases of strangers kidnapping and murdering children are extremely rare thankfully, but they are the ones everybody has heard of, because they get all the media attention.
You make some good points about minimisation and people not wanting to believe that this has really happened, which is actually a defence mechanism for dealing with a very traumatic situation.
But I want to pick up one thing, which is the idea that children are being kidnapped and killed to produce these images. That almost never happens. I've only ever read about one such case, where images were involved. This reinforces the idea of stranger danger, but that is misleading.
The vast majority of images, now 90% according to the IWF, are self generated. That means children at home, sending pictures of themselves over the internet, albeit to complete strangers, but not the monsters that we read about in the papers.
In terms of contact abuse, that is still mostly committed by adults known to the child or the childs family, although communication cases have definately increased, and we know that the police have increased their use of decoys.
The cases of strangers kidnapping and murdering children are extremely rare thankfully, but they are the ones everybody has heard of, because they get all the media attention.
I don't think I could even begin to imagine seeing images, I am still scarred from seeing horrible images of animals back when Facebook was first a thing and all sorts slipped through the net! I don't think this thread was intended to minimise but open the conversation around categorisation. I think we can all agree that a Cat A, B or C of a toddler is vastly different from a Cat A, B or C of a 16 year old who may very well look 20 years old - not that I agree with the latter but perhaps the offender wasn't aware of age, according to law they should be punished regardless. Which ties into another point which has been raised about legal porn. There are many many videos which purposely border on legalities rather than caring about morality - the stepdaughter scenario, petite schoolgirl, lots of key words and phrases which entice users to imagine, what I would consider to be sick fantasies that endorse the sexualisation of innocent scenarios that mainly pertain to children.
A lot of these laws are fairly new and the purpose of laws are to protect society and they tend to grow and change with a changing society, I remember seeing porn websites when I was a teenager and the categories were totally different to what they are today because legally they were allowed to say what a lot worse than what the law now governs, now I see how they get around saying what they really want. The term barely legal was massively popular back then as were others I don't think are appropriate for here.
The point is, whilst I am absolutely not minismising these crimes, I do think more needs to be done to negate behaviour leading up to it as I truly believe that a lot of legal porn is the reason people move on to illegal stuff because it creates curiosity due to the bordering. I also think a lot more consideration needs to be given to the context of the offence - teenagers being arrested for images of their peers, which the CPS has guidelines to not charge for but it still happens. There's lots of changes I would like to see, I just find the whole process is sometimes reductive and isn't always protecting children from what I've seen so far.
A lot of these laws are fairly new and the purpose of laws are to protect society and they tend to grow and change with a changing society, I remember seeing porn websites when I was a teenager and the categories were totally different to what they are today because legally they were allowed to say what a lot worse than what the law now governs, now I see how they get around saying what they really want. The term barely legal was massively popular back then as were others I don't think are appropriate for here.
The point is, whilst I am absolutely not minismising these crimes, I do think more needs to be done to negate behaviour leading up to it as I truly believe that a lot of legal porn is the reason people move on to illegal stuff because it creates curiosity due to the bordering. I also think a lot more consideration needs to be given to the context of the offence - teenagers being arrested for images of their peers, which the CPS has guidelines to not charge for but it still happens. There's lots of changes I would like to see, I just find the whole process is sometimes reductive and isn't always protecting children from what I've seen so far.
Topic Archived