Patrick Rock to be charged for downloading indecent images of children
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
How can anyone's child ever do something sexual or go into a sexual pose? Surely that's a perverted mind and nothing to do with an innocent child?
Kids don't know about what "sexual" is and they can do all sorts of acrobatics with their bodies, I certainly wouldn't find any pose my nephew could possibly do as "sexual" that just sounds ridiculous to me.
Kids don't know about what "sexual" is and they can do all sorts of acrobatics with their bodies, I certainly wouldn't find any pose my nephew could possibly do as "sexual" that just sounds ridiculous to me.
Last edited:
No, but adults can tell them to dress and pose in a certain way.
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Kids may not but the adults taking the photos do and therein lies the issue.
No one is accusing the kids of being dirty little stop outs shaking what their momma gave them
Yes thats the point asim there are bad people in this world who tell children to go into specific poses (look just like the model/celebrity in the magazine!) while they take pictures and then they trade these pictures with other bad people.
I still don't get it. So if an parent makes their child wear something cute and take a photo, it's sexual?
I think this world is more perverted than I thought.
If I take a picture of my other half in a bikini stood there doing nothing it's not sexual, get her on all fours with her arse stuck in the air and her legs spread it's not exactly family album suitable. In the office wearing a skirt, blouse and heels just standing around. Not sexual. Bent over the desk with a view up the skirt although still fully clothed. Sexual.
See what we're saying?
Last edited:
No because kids wave their legs around and are on their knees most of the time, because they're kids and they're playing, not because they're doing something sexual. I would never have assumed a child on their knees or with their legs in the air is something sexual.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
So, about the pictures of your other half...
Some of the children were as young as 10, some in bras. You really can't see the issue?
Erm of course I can see the issue with some pervert having a pic of some random child in swimwear, that's not what I'm trying to understand. But then the same person is probably going to find the image that you mentioned about your other half in a bikini sexual too. Some people find feet sexual for goodness sake.
That's the issue, something one person finds completely innocent is going to be sexual for a pervert.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,148
- Location
- South
There's no definitive right or wrong answer going by your example I'm afraid asim, you can argue both sides.
But I'm assuming these children were being made to pose in a sexually provocative manner.
But then you could argue its only sexual if you find it that way.
Either way its weird having these pictures.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Put aside the sexual poses argument, the camera shots could be considered sexual.
Last edited:
I don't know much about this case but you are right, a child like the ones described in this article would never pose in a sexual way at all for the same reasons you point out.
If the pictures found in an account on the PC\Device he used had children doing sexual poses in swimwear or underwear then they have been made\forced to pose like that, so anyone looking at these pictures intentionally to get off on them is as guilty as the person who took them.