Are there any NIS stories set in middle school?
Are there any NIS stories set in middle school?
If there are, they would have to predate September 2011.
If there are, they would have to predate September 2011.
Or only involve 9th graders who are 14.
Or only involve 9th graders who are 14.
9th graders are generally 15, and middle school excludes 9th graders.
K-12, and Kindergarten is mostly 5 year olds, though there is some chance of getting in at age 4, depending on when your birthday falls relative to the start of the school year.
I graduated high school at 17 but the vast majority of my graduating class was a year older at 18.
Generally, middle school is grades 6-8 and junior high is grades 7-9 (or just 7-8)
Ninth grade is 13-14, other than the really stupid kids.
And yes, there was a couple stories where Pegram participate did outrach at middle schools.
In the US the average 9th grader turns 15 during their 9th grade year. Most turn 16 and can drive during sophomore year
9th graders are generally 15, and middle school excludes 9th graders.
That all depends on the school. Many now include 9th, but not all by a long shot.
And no, they are generally 13-14. I know this very well, because that is when we took drivers training. We had a course for that at my Jr. High, and almost all 9th graders took it.
You are confusing the age at which they graduate, with the age most of them are while in the grade. Yes, I was 15 when I graduated 9th grade, but for most of it I was 14.
In general, in the United States:
K 5-6
1 6-7
2 7-8
3 8-9
4 9-10
5 10-11
6 11-12
7 12-13
8 13-14
9 14-15
10 15-16
11 16-17
12 17-18
A middle school which included 9th would be SOL-acceptable for NIS, and there are some (but not all that many).
One could also start the NIS program only at 14 during 8th grade; you'd have an ever-increasing NIS-aged population over the year, but an ever-diminishing time left in the school year.
In general, in the United States:
Which I again state, that is in reality the ages of graduation. Which can be quite different than their age through most of those grades.
If a child graduates at 18, but turned that age only two months before, I would argue that they were 17, as that was their age through almost that entire school year.
Those who graduate at the youngest ages, would enter a year earlier. Somebody who graduates at 17, enters that school year at 16.
2 of my kids graduated at 18, the other at 17. They entered their final grade at ages 17 and 16. It all depends on where the school split the ages when they first entered.
Those who graduate at the youngest ages, would enter a year earlier. Somebody who graduates at 17, enters that school year at 16.
Not necessarily. I graduated at 17. My birthday is mid September. Technically I was only 16 at the start of the school year for my Senior year but I was 17 for 90% of the school year.
And you are forgetting all the kids whose birthdays are during summer vacation. They would all be the same age for the entire school year.
I put in a range for each (e.g. 14-15 for 9th). That's not the age "at graduation". Well - 15 is.
Most (not all!) kids enter 9th grade at 14 and exit at 15. Those with birthdays over the summer may well still be 14. Those who skipped a grade or were held back will be different; so will those who are affected by a school district cutoff date (being on the high or low end of the age range).
So, one would presume the median 9th grade age over the entire year is likely 14, since there will be almost no 15-year-olds on the first day, and most likely about 75% 15-year-olds on the last day. The crossover point (where the median would flip from 14 to 15) should be about 2/3 of the way into the school year.
Most (not all!) kids enter 9th grade at 14 and exit at 15.
Well, if that is the case then something has changed in the last 40 years.
I know that when I started my 9th grade year, I was 14, and that was part of the requirement for taking driver's training. The second half of the school year was for students who were only 13 at the start, but were 14 at the end.
Of course, this was also back when we could drive in that state at 14, which has been a while. And it was only because of this big "rite of passage" that I remember it being so. In fact, out of curiosity I just pulled up my old school, the old driving course is now a parking lot.
In fact, I remember laughing when I moved to LA, and having friends who were Sophomores looking forward to taking that class as Juniors. And their shock when I said I took it as a Freshman.
I started 9th grade at 13.
I started kindergarten at 4, graduated high school at 17, and was still 17 when I started college. I squeaked in just under the "you must be 5 by this date to go to kindergarten this year" deadline.
I squeaked in just under the "you must be 5 by this date to go to kindergarten this year" deadline.
Same here.
I have a friend who did that, too. He was always one of the youngest people in the grade. Worked just fine for him.
Just curious. Is this reference an attempt to prove a factual point by citing a fictional story?
Just curious. Is this reference an attempt to prove a factual point by citing a fictional story?
Other than the question was about stories, plural, and I referenced a story, singular, I'd say you're correct. ;)
The closest I can think of is https://storiesonline.net/s/42311/naked-high and - having just looked at the start - it has kids in their first year of High School. The story was never finished.
I never read the story already mentioned by garymrssn.
Oh, looking at https://storiesonline.net/universe/2/naked-in-school and looking for the word "middle" showed up another one - https://storiesonline.net/s/43481/nis-outdoor-school by Wizard. The last I heard of him he was doing time for child pornography offences. Yes, really.
I don't think so (but ianal), I think there were three strikes against him:
- He wrote such stories
- He was supposed to have had images of younger kids on his PC
- He thought it was a good idea to represent himself before the court.
Bear in mind that this is all third-hand information supplied by people who knew him a bit, I started reading one of his stories years ago but abandoned it after a few minutes.
Does that mean you can go to prison for reading stories of underage kids (
Not in the US, US child pornography laws only cover real images of real children.
Obscenity prosecutions have been brought against writers of underage sex stories, but my understanding is that the obscenity laws do not cover mere possession the way child porn laws do.
However, if you are not in the US, do be aware that a number of countries have passed "virtual" child porn laws that would cover drawings, stories and images/video of adult performers who look under age. Many of those laws would cover possession.
Does that mean you can go to prison for reading stories of underage kids (
No.
Back in the 1990's, for a while there was a US law that did make such illegal. But it was quickly thrown out by the Supreme Court.
The law was well intentioned, but a lot of people pointed out the scores of books and movies that would then instantly become illegal as "child porn". Works like Romeo and Juliet (she is 13), Lolita (12), Jasmine from Aladdin (15), Ariel from The Little Mermaid (16), Snow White (14), and the list just goes on and on and on.
As well as such works like Archie, which would not uncommonly show a 16 year old Betty or Veronica in their underwear (or sometimes nude from the back). It was long ago decided (in the US) that such depictions were not illegal, as they were fictitious and did not actually involve the exploitation of actual children in any way.
And we're likely to revisit that, soon. 'Deepfake' technology and AI-based character generation are approaching the point where images will turn up that are nearly (or possibly literally) indistinguishable from photographs, eventually video, of actual children. Especially if you assume that clever bad guys will postprocess images of actual children to make forensic analysis show that they're computer-generated.
It's obviously a much broader problem than just child porn, but child porn is one of the few cases where 'mere possession' is a crime. Until now, that's made sense partly because it's obvious whether or not a child had to be involved. Once that's not the case, where does the law go?
Until now, that's made sense partly because it's obvious whether or not a child had to be involved. Once that's not the case, where does the law go?
In the US, nowhere absent a constitutional amendment.
Not at all sure I believe that. Maybe, maybe not. With the current construction of the Supreme Court? I could see them ruling Constitutional a law making it illegal to create or possess a work that was indistinguishable from an actual child. And I suspect it'd be a case where both parties would support that interpretation for the most part.
With the current construction of the Supreme Court? I could see them ruling Constitutional a law making it illegal to create or possess a work that was indistinguishable from an actual child.
Is already pretty much a law. And it has been since the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. Part of the law specifically states:
captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means.
Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-795
The Supreme Court held that virtual child pornography cannot be banned by congress and that those provisions of the law are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court held that virtual child pornography cannot be banned by congress and that those provisions of the law are unconstitutional.
You are missing a key point of the ruling:
the Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production
But take the genitals of a real adult and paste them over the image of a child? Still illegal, because that is indeed a child, and is a victim of being exploited and sexualized. Does not involve simple speech (an actress saying she is 14), but would use an actual child.
Yes, because you have an actual image of a real living child.
On the other hand a completely computer generated child no mater how convincing and realistic would be legal.
On the other hand a completely computer generated child no mater how convincing and realistic would be legal.
Which is a "cartoon", no matter how lifelike it is. That is legal, has been for a long time. Otherwise, simply possessing things like "Kite" would be child porn.
Want to feature Vanellope von Schweetz (who is 12) doing it with Wreck It Ralph, knock your socks off. Make it as realistic as you want.
Just do not do it of a real person.
What, exactly, did I miss?
You made the claim that it can not ban "virtual porn".
That is not the case. It can not ban virtual porn where there is no actual victim. As the reference I just gave in regards to the PROTECT Act of 2003, when even simulated sex with an actual minor is created, it is not protected. Because there is an actual victim involved.
That only applies if there is no victim at all, as in completely created without the use of a real person, or when it is words and once again no child is involved.
The moment you involve an actual child, be it simulated, or through digital or other photographic manipulation, it crosses the line and is no longer "virtual", but considered actual child porn. No matter how it was made.
My point was more that I don't necessarily believe the current Supreme Court would decide the case in the same way, not respect the precedent, were the issue to be relitigated.
My point was more that I don't necessarily believe the current Supreme Court would decide the case in the same way, not respect the precedent, were the issue to be relitigated.
Outside of a few limited areas it's very hard to get an appeal before the Supreme Court without a split in the circuit courts and the circuit courts are obligated to follow existing Supreme Court precedent.
Unless Congress passes a new "virtual" child porn law, the odds that anyone will even get the chance to re-litigate this issue before the Supreme Court are exceedingly low.
Unless Congress passes a new "virtual" child porn law, the odds that anyone will even get the chance to re-litigate this issue before the Supreme Court are exceedingly low.
And once again, who is going to do it? This is an area that also has other laws that step into play. Like those in regards to "Revenge Porn".
First, you are going to have to find somebody who is convicted of violating that low, as well as others that is going to be willing to fight it that far. And I bet such a case would not even make it out of the first appellate court.
The CPPA had flaws when it was made 25 years ago. Even I admit that. But the parts that real people objected to (authors, Hollywood, the legitimate porn industry) hit on the parts that they objected to, and what is left is a bill that actually does what it claimed, without bringing in others.
So now we are free to be bombarded by women with DD cut plastic boobs and tattoos all over their body, saying they are really 16 and the best friend of the sister of the 30 year old guy who is pounding them.
But say use techniques to create an incredibly lifelike image of at a 16 year old Brooke Shields, then you are gonna be in trouble. For child porn laws, not to mention the defamation and unfair use laws.
Trust me, been following this kind of thing for decades now. Those that make such know the laws, and know to not cross them. Because it can get not only authorities but money lawyers howling for their blood.
There are some incredibly lifelike depictions of all Disney Princesses out there. But entirely fictional and no children used at all in their creation. The law already in existence is good enough, and any attempt at a new one would be bounced by SCOTUS right away because of their earlier rulings.
First, you are going to have to find somebody who is convicted of violating that low, as well as others that is going to be willing to fight it that far.
Nope. The child porn laws a criminal. There is no private right of action. The government would have to try to prosecute someone and they challenge the law as a defense.
Nope. The child porn laws a criminal. There is no private right of action. The government would have to try to prosecute someone and they challenge the law as a defense.
And how many in the past 25 years have tried to fight the law?
And there are also other laws now, like the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT). The most recent case involving that reached the Supreme Court in 2017.
In short, a man was convicted of distributing child pornography. The photos basically showed simulated sex with minors, and he was convicted. There was no actual sex in the photos he was distributing, it was simulated sex. The case went to the 11th Circuit Court, and was overturned. It was then pushed to the Supreme Court, where both the law and sentencing were upheld.
Further appeal led to the Supreme Court's reversing the 11th Circuit and upholding the PROTECT Act provision in United States v. Williams. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection."
Scalia appeared unconcerned that the provision could apply to people who claimed they had child pornography when in reality they did not. "Offers to deal in illegal products or otherwise engage in illegal activity do not acquire First Amendment protection when the offeror is mistaken about the factual predicate of his offer. … There is no First Amendment exception from the general principle of criminal law that a person attempting to commit a crime need not be exonerated because he has a mistaken view of the facts," Scalia wrote.
"If the Act can be enforced, it will function just as it was meant to do, by merging the whole subject of child pornography into the offense of proposing a transaction, dispensing with the real-child element in the underlying subject," Souter wrote.
But say use techniques to create an incredibly lifelike image of at a 16 year old Brooke Shields, then you are gonna be in trouble. For child porn laws, not to mention the defamation and unfair use laws.
That will not get you into trouble under the child porn laws, except possibly investigated. The real issue with cgi is that real people (children) would be used for the models.
It would have to be a non-homogeneous scaling, because all the bones grow at different rates at different ages; also muscle mass distribution and baby-fat distribution changes markedly across the ages. All that could be dealt with with enough processor power, but there are other problems to overcome, eyes and teeth for instance; teeth don't change size but the bone they're embedded in does, and children's pupils are more dilated than adults. Then, there's kinaesthetics - during rapid growth, proprioception doesn't keep up with the body so some clumsiness ensues, which will have subtle effects on movement, but which would likely reveal the scaled adult as a fake (probably subliminally, so they just 'look a bit wrong'). OTOH, for the subject under discussion it doesn't have to be that perfect, and the non-homogeneous scaling alone (or with eye-drops and dental caps) should suffice.
OTOH, for the subject under discussion it doesn't have to be that perfect, and the non-homogeneous scaling alone (or with eye-drops and dental caps) should suffice.
What is being discussed is motion capture for CGI animation, not scaling actual images of the adult performers for live action video. I don't see how the eye-drops and dental caps would be necessary or make any difference.
I have no idea how difficult it would or wouldn't be.
The other problem they would face is that it would still be in violation of the law if judged to be obscene, with the enhanced penalties for child porn.
The other problem they would face is that it would still be in violation of the law if judged to be obscene, with the enhanced penalties for child porn.
Only if they put the face of an actual child onto the finished work.
If they completely created a face, then it is fine. If they grabbed a picture of the daughter of a friend and used her face, that is child porn.
If they completely created a face, then it is fine.
Given the requirement of the use of an actual child in production, digitally de-aging the face of an adult performer for the CGI skin would probably also be safe.
Given the requirement of the use of an actual child in production, digitally de-aging the face of an adult performer for the CGI skin would probably also be safe.
It is is digital, why even bother going to all that trouble in the first place?
Just create a face, a hell of a lot less work.
No. That is wrong. If it is obscene it can still be prosecuted under the protect act whether it is a real face or not. The issue is the obscenity - not all, or even most, images/videos of naked children are obscene and are legal.
If it is obscene it can still be prosecuted under the protect act.
Yes, but for that it has to meet the Miller test and simple nudity and sexual acts are not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test.
The courts have stuck down sections of the protect act concerning virtual child pornography that did not require application of the miller test.
Obscenity prosecutions can actually be quite difficult.
"Simple nudity and sexual acts" are not enough for prosecution under any of these laws.
The other problem they would face is that it would still be in violation of the law if judged to be obscene, with the enhanced penalties for child porn.
To give an idea, there is a series of web videos called "Vault Girls" that has been around for years now. Basically Fallout 4 Machinima. Movies made with the graphics engine in this case of a video game.
The "stars" are all teen girls, as in under 16. But it is completely made with the resources of a video game, so it is ignored. It is obvious not a single one of the girls is "real" in any way, no matter how realistic it is.
And there are lots of mods like that floating around, for everything from Fallout and Skyrim, to The Sims and every other game you can imagine. They are not hard to find at all. And the cops are not storming the homes and offices of those who create them, because it is obvious they do not involve real children.
But then there are games like Second Life, which is also popular for Machinima. And in that you can actually upload an actual face of a person. Do it like that, and you can be in big trouble. Once again, because it then involves a real child and not one that is entirely manufactured.
But then there are games like Second Life, which is also popular for Machinima. And in that you can actually upload an actual face of a person. Do it like that, and you can be in big trouble. Once again, because it then involves a real child and not one that is entirely manufactured.
It starts to get messy, but you'd probably only be in trouble if you captured an image of someone who is still underage.
If you use a 10 year old image of someone who is currently 22, there's a strong argument that a real child is not being used in the production, because the "child" no longer exists as such.
On the other hand, if you do that in a state that has recognized personal image rights (federal law doesn't) you could be found liable in a civil case.
It starts to get messy, but you'd probably only be in trouble if you captured an image of someone who is still underage.
No, the law is about the age of the child at the time, not the real life age of them at a later date.
My kids are all over 21, but if I took one of their images from 14 and did it, still against the law. Because it involves the image of a child.
No, the law is about the age of the child at the time, not the real life age of them at a later date.
You are correct, the law cares about the age of the child at the time the porn is created.
I talked about two things.
Digitally de-aging the face of an adult performer. Using an old childhood image of someone who is currently an adult.
In both cases the person is an adult at the time the porn is created.
In both cases the person is an adult at the time the porn is created.
'childhood image' is where it falls apart. If the 'childhood image' is used in the production of the porn, then the age in that image is also applicable. Yes, you'd have Schrodinger's pussy - both 11 and 26 years old at the same time.
In both cases the person is an adult at the time the porn is created.
But if the image used is of a child, that then becomes child porn. Just as if a picture is taken of a 14 year old and the person is still 14 in real life. It does not differentiate of their age at the time the creation is made, it is still the image of a child used.
Why? if you use motion capture or something, why would not a scaled down adult work?
For MoCap, it really does not matter at all.
After all, look at Andy Serkis. Nobody complains because he is not a hobbit, a 50 year old overweight drunken sea captain, a chimp, or a bear. MoCap does not even need to be exactly right for the scale of limbs, mostly it is looking at joints and how they move.
And there is nothing really stopping somebody from making a mocap adult version of say Bratz, other than the obvious copyright infringement issue.
And it is not hard to scale down a believable youth body. Just have to remember the hand, foot, and head will be a bit oversized from an adult, and if you go younger than puberty the legs and arms will be shorter.
MoCap is MoCap. Does not matter how old or big the person is, it is used to make a framework that the body is then put over. Two people having sex in mocap can be changed into anything, from a geriatric couple to kids to furries. And if done right, it will work for all of them.
were the issue to be relitigated.
And who in the hell is going to do that? A group of kiddie pornographers?
That would be about as funny as a group of drug dealers trying to fight the laws regarding the licensing of pharmacies.
I could see them ruling Constitutional a law making it illegal to create or possess a work that was indistinguishable from an actual child.
I'm going to say only if it was indistinguishable from a particular and identifiable living child.
If it simply looks real, but you can't produce a real living child that it matched then no.
Otherwise videos and photos produced with living adult performers who look underage would already be covered by child porn laws, and they aren't.
Jasmine from Aladdin (15), Ariel from The Little Mermaid (16), Snow White (14), and the list just goes on and on and on.
I know Disney's been on a remake kick, but I must have missed when they released the porn versions of those.
When I started this thread, I didn't realize that there were stories of 11 year olds. I thought with the new middle school configuration they would be 15 year old stories. When I went to middle school, things were very different in ages. Perhaps because it was a small district, it had different age ranges than most.
Several stories here:
https://storiesonline.net/a/peregrinf
Stories by Naked City have the program in elementary school.
Not officially NIS but the same theme:
https://storiesonline.net/s/68803/middle-school-orientation
BTW, it took about 30 seconds to find these searching "naked middle school" in the quick search box.
This is not really rocket science. Real child, it is child porn.
Most likely, under California law, you could not be charged for ownership or marketing of cartoon child pornography. Prosecutors can convict you on the grounds that you were aware you participated in child pornography (meaning creation, ownership, or distribution), and if you were aware that the victim was a minor.
However, at least one California court has stipulated that, "a real child must have been used in production and actually engaged in or simulated the sexual conduct depicted"
I am starting to really wonder about some in here, and how hard they seem to be fighting for seeing fake pictures of children be legal
Discussing the state of the law is not fighting for anything.
And, in fact, my take isn't fighting for anything, it's considering the state of the law.
Here are the problems I see in the state of the discussion this far:
The 'real child' argument an enormous issue. Take a good look at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/21/science/artificial-intelligence-fake-people-faces.html
Some of the faces are glitchy; sure. Many are not. There are companies who sell AI-generated child faces right now, today. There is no 'real child'. However, there is a face that is very nearly indistinguishable from a real child. Short of detailed forensic analysis, nearly anyone would look at the picture and say 'that's a real child'.
Child porn proceedings, in general, do not require the prosecution to produce the victim. That's basically a 'duh'; of course they don't. Much is produced in other countries and it'd be virtually impossible for the prosecution to find the child whose image is captured.
So: two problems:
1) Courts have to be able to determine, 100%, that image X is computer-generated, not real. They have to determine this even if, for instance, malicious pornographer Y has fed a computer a bunch of exploitive source images, or simply postprocessed one image to make it appear to be computer-generated to forensics.
2) Flip side. Image-generation software is based on ingesting large amounts of (presumably totally legal) images of children. Is an image that is a computer-processed recomposure of the images of 100,000 real children that of a 'real child'? Even though it matches zero of the real children? If so, the entire area is illegal under the 'real child' doctrine, notwithstanding that no child was ever abused.
I'm not advocating either. There are serious problems with both. In one path, people who are - under most traditional views of jurisprudence - innocent are nonetheless going to be judged guilty. In the other, people who are abusing actual children may go free because they can plausibly claim their images are digitally generated even though they are not.
The point(s) are: 1) this is nowhere near as simply as some people are making it out to be, and 2) the state of the law is nowhere near as settled as some people are making it out to be, and, even if it were, we're discussing new types of works, which tend to stress the law.
Does anyone think the people who want these images are really going to be satisfied with computer generated images? What they want is the real thing and are willing to risk everything to get it.
Based on what I've seen reported, many will, many won't. It depends. This is similar to the argument about violent video games; do they sublimate violent impulses or encourage them? The answer seems to be both.
Does anyone think the people who want these images are really going to be satisfied with computer generated images?
Do you believe many of them would be capable of determining whether or not the images they acquired were taken in a rape factory in Bogata as compared to created on a server in Budapest?
Various computer tools useful in forensics (manipulating the apparent age of the subject of a set image) have been mentioned before. Imagine scaling that up to being able to process a video stream, rather than just a fixed image. Yes, massive computational power would be required... but within ten years it should be feasible. So, set up shop in the Valley, hire some washed up 26 year old porn chick, train the software to revert her age to 14 (or 12) and have her star in a few dozen fetish videos. Then sit back and let the computer edit out the tattoos and track marks and implants and piercings and wrinkles and generate 'child porn' that would only be recognized as fake by someone who'd seen the 'starlet' when she was in her first movie at 18 and realized what you'd done.
Yes, you'd probably have the odd 'fan' with deep pockets who would insist on a 'private screening' with the 'star' that could be problematic. But that's the only way that someone could know for certain that the product was 'the real thing'... by actually meeting/fucking the child involved.
I think you would have to revert the adult a lot farther than that. Most of the cases I have seen prosecuted are for material dealing with prepubescent children.
But yes, I think they would know the difference.
Maybe with current technology.
But consider what ten to twenty years advancement in computers translates into. It's reasonable to believe that computer age-regression software could produce perfect hi-def video indistinguishable from video shot with actually underaged 'performers'.
As to the age to target - I don't know many folk into kiddie porn, so I had to guess. I could see the 'low teen' market appealing to those into the 'barely legal' genre as well as some of the traditional 'kiddie porn' market, so figured it might be the first commercial attempt.
But consider what ten to twenty years advancement in computers translates into. It's reasonable to believe that computer age-regression software could produce perfect hi-def video indistinguishable from video shot with actually underaged 'performers'.
Hell, I can do that right now, and nobody could tell the difference.
As I said, there are companies in Japan that cater exactly to that.
Throwing out names, but imagine I hire a 19 year old Drew Barrymore, and hooked her up with a 19 year old Michael J. Fox. At that time, both of them looked like they were still in High School, but were unquestionably adults.
So why would anybody or any company go to all of that work and nonsense, when they can simply cast youthful looking adults?
So why would anybody or any company go to all of that work and nonsense, when they can simply cast youthful looking adults?
Because there are dirtbags who aren't satisfied with 'youthful'. They want to see much younger children.
Because there are dirtbags who aren't satisfied with 'youthful'. They want to see much younger children.
And they are not the target of these laws. The "legitimate companies" know what is illegal, and what is not. And do not go around trying to skirt them in any way they can.
The targets of these laws are the individuals who are actively trying to make child porn, but in a way they can hopefully skirt prosecution on technicalities.
"Oh, this is not child porn! See, there is no actual penetration, it's all simulated!"
"Oh, this is not real child porn! See, I used Photoshop to paste the face of a 14 year old girl on a 19 year old actress!"
Yes, there are individuals doing that. And that is who these laws are aimed at. Legitimate companies, they know the laws and try hard to stay well clear of them. They do not even try to skirt them, they make millions of dollars already and do not need to.
That is why there is a big difference between the legitimate companies, and the guy that lives in the basement and is still a child in a 35 year old body.
So why would anybody or any company go to all of that work and nonsense, when they can simply cast youthful looking adults?
Try finding multiple eighteen year olds who can both pass for twelve years old when naked (it's easy to manipulate the apparent age of someone via clothing, after all) and are willing to appear in porn.
You might be able to do it, but the search might be more difficult than using software to revert ages in video.
And, there might be potential customers who would not want to buy 'actual' child porn but would be willing to pay for 'counterfeit' child porn that looked 'real'. And maybe some of the really sick bastards wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Of course, they're probably the ones who collect or trade the 'performers' from actual kiddie porn so I don't know that it would help much, although separating them from some more of their money isn't a bad thing.
Try finding multiple eighteen year olds who can both pass for twelve years old when naked (it's easy to manipulate the apparent age of someone via clothing, after all) and are willing to appear in porn.
You might be able to do it, but the search might be more difficult than using software to revert ages in video.
And here is the very flaw in your argument. Why even bother trying to revert the ages if they look 12 but are really 18? And even if you did, it is not illegal because they are over 18. It only becomes illegal if you actually try to present them as being underage (hence the disclaimers put on every porn movie that all performers are over 18 and records are on file).
Sorry, but your attempts are really all over the map, and keep going down rabbit holes that do not exist.
And here is the very flaw in your argument. Why even bother trying to revert the ages if they look 12 but are really 18?
My point was it would be easier/cheaper to revert the ages of random 20-something performers to make them appear 12, rather than trying to find those 18-but-can-pass-as-12-naked-(and are willing to star in porn)
My point was it would be easier/cheaper to revert the ages of random 20-something performers to make them appear 12, rather than trying to find those 18-but-can-pass-as-12-naked-(and are willing to star in porn)
And still 100% legal. Just so long as they do not use sources made when the performer is under age. And this capability has been around for years, but how many companies are trying to do that?
Case in point, a while back they made an Addams Family movie, with Kate Bloom (20 years old, 5'2") as Wednesday Addams. She is small and petite, and looked like a 15 year old Wednesday Addams. Only the original CPPA would have applied, and that is why that aspect of the law was fought over and stricken. She was not a child, they never claimed she was a child. They used nothing other than camera tricks (forced perspective, makeup, clothing) to make her look like a child.
Why would any company go out of their way, when they do not have to? Simple, they would not. Now that the part of purely ACTING like you are under 18 was stricken out of the law, there is no reason to.
After all, I do not really think that Rebecca Romijn has a blue-purple skin and scales. And they make no claim she does. And when Jennifer Lawrence or Morgan Lily played a younger Raven (who as in the comics did not wear clothes), nobody said a word because there was nothing "sexual" in the performance in any way, not even implied.
Even though technically, it could be argued that the 11 year old Morgan Lily was "child porn", as she was not wearing clothing in the scene. But nobody argues that, because it was never the intention and it was not presented in that manner. Hence, even the adult and naked Raven has no visible genitals or secondary sex characteristics other than body shape.
That may be prosecution versus prevalence. There's some (limited) research data that ephebephiles (and hebephiles, which is a new category) are more prevalent than pedophiles.
See: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/pedophiles-hebephiles-and-ephebophiles-oh-my-erotic-age-orientation/
I suspect the younger the child the easier it is to get a conviction. No proof, just a guess.
So, set up shop in the Valley, hire some washed up 26 year old porn chick, train the software to revert her age to 14 (or 12) and have her star in a few dozen fetish videos. Then sit back and let the computer edit out the tattoos and track marks and implants and piercings and wrinkles and generate 'child porn' that would only be recognized as fake by someone who'd seen the 'starlet' when she was in her first movie at 18 and realized what you'd done.
Actually, there are studios that specialize in doing just such a thing, and both actors and actresses who primarily work pretending to be children.
Tawny Pearl was one such in the 1970's and early 1980's. She looked like she was 16, even into her early 20's. She was 22 when she played the younger "High School student girlfriend" of one of the main characters.
Tom Byron was the exact same for the men. His "youthful boyish look" made him popular for nearly a decade, playing kids in high school.
However, in the US this entire segment largely collapsed after the Tracy Lords scandal, and suddenly appearing to be young could be bad for their career.
And today in Japan there are dozens of slender small females that do the same thing, as well as even men. Some even use midgets and dwarves to act as if they are very young.
But the difference is that these are professionally created and produced, and feature actors and actresses who are known and can be proven.
It must be remembered, these laws are not created for use against the professional companies. They try as hard as they can to keep kids out, they are professionals after all.
The idea is to arrest those who are illegal, who actually use children, then would use legal tricks to try and get out of trouble. You know, the ones actually using children.
The only way you can "exploit a child" legally now is in a completely created animated or still form (cartoon), or with written words.
Period.
What if I suspect that the kiddie porn crowd has deep pockets, and I could make more money defrauding them by creating 'counterfeit kiddie porn' and did as I suggested, possibly having the software revert the age of the female performer to nine?
Again, the actual star was of age at the time of filming. Yes, selling it would run the risk of some of the laws but I would think that using "I was actually committing fraud against the people buying it. Oh, by the way, here's all the info I have on the people who bought from me..." as a defense would probably work.
I suspect that once technology gets far enough, porn laws will be a case where the burden of proof is on the producer that there were no children involved.
What if I suspect that the kiddie porn crowd has deep pockets, and I could make more money defrauding them by creating 'counterfeit kiddie porn' and did as I suggested, possibly having the software revert the age of the female performer to nine?
Again, the actual star was of age at the time of filming. Yes, selling it would run the risk of some of the laws but I would think that using "I was actually committing fraud against the people buying it. Oh, by the way, here's all the info I have on the people who bought from me..." as a defense would probably work.
Nope, that defense would not work a bit. The guy prosecuted under the PROTECT Act with the simulated sex, that was part of his defense. He was trying to scam those that wanted kiddy porn.
And no, they do not have "deep pockets". In fact it is almost entirely done for free, like collectors now of say old bootleg performances on MP3, or who exchange clips of old 1970's and 1980's porn via torrent.
No money at all, simply secretive because what they do is illegal and they know it.
And the "trying a fraud" defense does not cut it. Might as well try to claim you were not really selling drugs, because the baggie of pot you were trying to sell was really parsley. Guess what, you presented it as pot, so you are still going down as if you were selling pot.
And once again, no. And I will say it one more time. THE LEGITIMATE COMPANIES KNOW THE LAWS AND AVOID SUCH THINGS AT ALL COSTS!
Therefore, the only ones doing it are illegal, trying to use technicalities to avoid prosecution.
This is why the CPPA was brought under fire by the industry. They did not want the entire law thrown out, they have no interest in promoting or exploiting actual child abuse. They only wanted the part that COULD be used against them to get clarified, and they got what they wanted. And they have not tried to fight the PROTECT Act, because this time it was very specific, and does not impact them at all so long as they follow the law.
There is no "deep pockets" in Child Pornography. They are people like Gary Glitter, who liked to take trips to foreign countries, and videotape himself having sex with children. Then shared those pictures and movies with others who did the exact same thing.
Just look into Operation Yewtree. The largest operation against child pornography in the UK. Dozens arrested, including Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, and more. No money was exchanging hands, they were exchanging their own images of molesting children with others who did the same thing.
The only "deep pockets" is that they were rich, and could therefore "groom" the children, so it became molestation and not actual rape.
Not unlike John K.
Are there any NIS stories not tagged or take place outside the Universe? I've read all the NIS content and am wondering if there are others.
https://storiesonline.net/s/59897/lizzie-moving-in
https://storiesonline.net/a/sam177
Lizzie Moving In
by sam177
Synopsis: A teen girl moves into a new town, meets new friends, and practices for the Naked in School Program. Oh and she's a vampire. This is the first in a series. Note some codes refer to a story within the story and the interacial code is for sex between races and people of different colors.
Sex Contents: Much Sex
Codes: Ma/Fa, mt/ft, ft/ft, Mult, Consensual, Reluctant, Lesbian, BiSexual, Heterosexual, Paranormal, Vampires, Were animal, BDSM, DomSub, Snuff, Swinging, Group Sex, Orgy, Polygamy/Polyamory, Interracial, Black Male, White Male, White Female, First, Oral Sex, Anal Sex, Masturbation, Pregnancy, Body Modification, Nudism
Prof Jack has Jacob and Tiffany - Naked in School that is not in the universe. It comes before his Jacob and Tiffany II, NIS. The Density Force Begins which is in the universe.
Terry has two stories (requires Premium) closely related to NiS but are not listed in the universe.