Talk:ChildWiki

I dunno about the whole "graphic" and "sexualized settings" thing. As someone pointed out, "As everything becomes child pornography in the eyes of the law—clothed children, coy children, children in settings where children are found—perhaps children themselves become pornographic". Leucosticte (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that edit by Koavf true and honest? If it is, then it could be considered as reasonable commentary. I, being a Brit, personally can't comment on the legalise issues of the wiki, nor the comments by Koavf - so I'm not the best person to give a worthwhile opinion. All I can say, is that based on the general content of the wiki, you are bound to attract critical opinion. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Objectively accurate descriptions are to be encouraged, but what a person considers "graphic" and "sexualized" is pretty subjective. If there's a kid wearing a speedo at the beach, or lying on a bed in typical nightclothes, or sucking on a carrot, or participating in a nudist pageant, is that graphic or sexualized? It's a matter of interpretation. See also the wikipedia:Dost test and United States v. Knox, the latter of which established that nudity isn't the only criterion in deciding these matters (at least from a legal standpoint).

Various sites have pics that would be considered non-sexual on, say, the parent's Facebook profile, but are considered sexual when placed on other sites because of the context — e.g. a bunch of comments by people saying what they'd like to do with that child. But what they're describing and what the pics actually show are not one and the same.

If someone adds to the article, "ChildWiki links to material that, in the opinion of x, is graphic in nature and depicts children in sexualized settings" that is a factual statement if x actually said that. But at least in that case, we are clear that it is just someone's opinion. It is not as though these are pics of kids surrounded by a bunch of obviously sexual implements such as fuzzy handcuffs and dildos; then I think you could objectively say that they're sexualized settings. Nor are these pics of kids doing anything sexually explicit like touching themselves or anyone else sexually. Then I think you could objectively say that they're graphic.

If they were, then the pics wouldn't be "coy" (i.e. making a pretense of shyness or modesty that is intended to be alluring). Of course, coyness usually means there's some element of ambiguity that creates plausible deniability. So again, it's subject to interpretation. It seems to frequently happen in life that a person's behavior misinterpreted as flirtatious, or someone failed to pick up on behavior that was intended as flirtatious.

Now, if someone wants to say, ChildWiki has a lot of pics of kids acting in ways that could be construed coy, as well as content pertaining to sex with children, well, that can't be denied. But then, what isn't coy? Even a smile can seem coy, if someone wants to read that into it. Leucosticte (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)