Talk:Jailbait images

Merge proposal

I propose that Jailbait images be merged into Child erotica. I think that the content in this article can easily be explained in the context of the 'Child erotica' article. Freikorp (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; the term child erotica usually refers to prepubescent children or early pubescents (but especially to prepubescents), and is often in reference to pedophilia, while the term jailbait is usually about minors who look adult enough or have some adult features via puberty or via being post-pubescent to be sexually attractive to an adult. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also pinging Legitimus, who, like me, works on pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics (among other topics), and may have something to state on this matter. I'm not sure if the Child erotica article is on his WP:Watchlist, though I'm sure that I discussed matters with him and WLU via email regarding this editor (Seerus). Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, I was hoping to hear from people who have more experience with articles on these topics; the only experiences I have with this general issue is the 'Jailbait/Jailbait images' articles. I didn't take into consideration that 'child erotica' generally refers only to pre or early pubescents. I only stumbled across the child erotica article today (after noticing it in the 'see also' section of the Child model article, which I came across via perusing the wiki's list of featured pictures and their corresponding pages), and noticed its similarities in terms or legality and such to the Jailbait images article. Whilst I think it is possible to make a sub-section about jailbait images work at child erotica, now that you mention it you are probably right that the articles should be separate. I'll wait for another comment or two and if that is the consensus i'll remove the proposal myself. Have a nice day :). Freikorp (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; Not strongly necessary. I'm seeing a lot of this for the first time, but based on the text as written in the two articles and the sources used, they appear to be distinct topics with separate issues of concern.Legitimus (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Legitimus, I was going to query this (your comment) earlier, but I'll query it now: I'm confused by your statement that you are seeing a lot of this for the first time. Do you mean that you hadn't analyzed the Child erotica article or sources relating to it thoroughly before? For example, I haven't often researched topics with the term child erotica used either; the term child pornography, which is narrower than the term child erotica, is usually the one of those two used in relation to pedophiles and/or child sexual abuse. Do you mean that research matter and that you hadn't seen the Jailbait images article? Since you watch the Jailbait article, I figured that you are familiar with the jailbait images debate that recently went on there, including the creation of the Jailbait images article. Is the Child erotica article on your watchlist? Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly no. I must have missed the Jailbait Images debate. I may have inadvertently taken Jailbait off my watchlist or when there was a move it messed it up. The child pornography/child erotica area in particular has always made me a bit wary/uncertain because it is so very politicized. And the mental health research on it isn't very "solid" in my opinion because it's so hard to study when you get into the gray areas.Legitimus (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, just like the Child pornography article is better off with you watching it, considering pro-child pornography POV-pushers or similar (usually of the pro-"Yeah, prepubescent or early pubescent porn is good" variety), the Child erotica article would be better off with you watching it. I don't fully understand your point about "very politicized," such as in comparison to pedophilia topics or child sexual abuse topics, other than the gray areas of where underage post-pubesecents are involved and/or when minors are sexting each other, but thanks for commenting in this discussion. Keeping this discussion and what you stated above in mind, I take it that you consider some of the mental health research on child pornography/child erotica strong, but that the research on it in general is not very solid. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that yes, by "politicized" I mean the messy topics involving strictly post-pubescents below legal consenting age, and how the laws are all over the map in that area. The research I was referring to is about the effect it has on the viewer. Nobody disputes that making child pornography with a real child is abuse (except pedophiles), but it appears it's not well understood if the mere act of viewing, especially if it's just drawings or writings, actually perpetuates the impulses, is simply a consequences of the impulses, or inhibits the impulse to act out in real life. Personally I feel it does perpetuate them based on observations I've made, but that is WP:OR. Regardless, I have now added these articles into my watchlist to help keep an eye out.Legitimus (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Legitimus. I know that you already had the Child pornography article on your watchlist, so thanks for watchlisting the Child erotica article as well. That you've watchlisted the Jailbait images article is also a good thing, and I'm guessing that you put the Jailbait article back on your watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Legality

Why is it even suggested that legality of "jailbait images" is debated. A photo which is defined as being non-pornographic and non-nude cannot possibly be illegal, anywhere. Unless all images of children are illegal. Even under the Taliban that was not the case (and Islam teaches all images of the human form are idolatrous, making images of children illegal was too extreme even for such radical Muslim groups).101.98.169.98 (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Umm, did you actually read the article and the references cited? It is suggested that the legality of jailbait images is debated because it has been. Go read the articles by Mediaite and CNN that are cited. Also your statement that "non-nude [images] cannot possibly be illegal, anywhere" is grossly incorrect. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined fully clothed pictures can be considered pornographic [1]. Please see the wikipedia articles on the COPINE scale and Child erotica for more information. Plenty of people have been arrested for distributing sexualised but non-nude images of children. Freikorp (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted, let alone convicted for images viewed or downloaded from one of these jailbait sites, let alone been convicted. Nor has any U.S. court ruled any pictures of the type found these sights to be illegal. What that means is that we have a lawyer who thinks they might be ruled illegal by a court, under the Knox vs. the U.S. standard, the case that ruled "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" does not require nudity, should someone be charged for jailbait images downloaded from one of those sights. Your slightly wrong in your assertion that the Supreme Court declared " fully clothed pictures can be considered pornographic" as the case in question only dealt with the definition of child porn under federal law, not the definition of porn in general. Some material legally defined as child porn would not qualify as porn by most people's definition, if it had featured only adults. Some images from jail bait sites would fall into the grey area of the law where line between legal and illegal is murky. In some court jurisdictions, the Dost test would be used to determine of the photo depicts "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area", though that test is controversial and not all courts currently use that test. Also, while you are correct that people have been arrested for distributing sexualized but non-nude images of children, in most cases, the prosecutor simply secured a plea deal, with no actually court ruling on the illegality of the images in question. In at least one other case, a jury found the child erotica website operator not guilty. So far as I can tell, jailbait sites featuring fully clothed images of teens collected from elsewhere on the net have never been determined to be illegal as a whole by a court but theoretically some images found on them could be declared illegal by some future court if they where declared to feature lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area. Those that don't meet that standard (nor depict any sex acts) would not qualify as exempt from 1st amendment protection, based on my understanding of past Supreme court rulings on the issue, no matter how sexualized some prosecutor felt the minors in the images where. But of course the Supreme court could surprise me but until a case actually comes up addressing this issue it's purely speculative. --173.228.119.230 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is pointless and misleading

• So, what exactly are "jailbait images"? From the article: "jailbait images are often collected directly from girls' Facebook pages". Says who? Is that what the girls call their photos? The term is not used in any of the sources referenced.

• The majority of sources (9 of 14) refer specifically to Reddit's defunct r/jailbait section. That was one website. Two pieces talk about the Amanda Todd case (irrelevant, see below) and the other three discuss the various hashtags disabled by Instagram and Google.

• I did a Google web search for "jailbait images", none of the top hits linked to the types of images this article mentions. So I looked a bit further and found all of two websites advertising "jailbait" that collect and post pictures of girls, some who appear younger than 18. The photos look like holiday snapshots, pictures from graduation ceremonies and photos of teenage girls making funny faces, shopping, at school, playing sports...typical teenager stuff. If somebody finds these type of images erotic it has nothing to do with the person or people depicted in them, and everything to do with the individual viewing the photos. These are photos of teenage girls, not "jailbait images". (Granted, the ads on the sites and the tone of the language used to attract viewers are highly sexual. The images, however, are not).

• This article serves no useful purpose. It uses tabloid-style opinion pieces about a long closed subreddit to make its "point" and conflates Amanda Todd's tragic death with websites that repost non-erotic photos of teenage girls. It is misleading and misguided.

• The article should be deleted. User2346 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• @User2346: One can nominate for deletion if they believe it should be deleted. Additionally it could be merged into jailbait article as that one is a bit stubby. -- dsprc ^[talk]

Dsprc, yes, this article should be merged with the Jailbait article. It was a part of that article. For why it no longer is, see this. Mangoe split it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: I see. Appears consensus at time was against split and for inclusion there. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I split the articles because they are different subjects. And if people agree that this one is not really notable, then that's fine; it should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with the two article remaining separate if there is consensus that this article's subject is deserving of a separate article, as apposed to simply being discussed as a part of the Jailbait article. I not sure though just what information we can expect to either added to the Jailbait article such that it's size would justify having this keeping this article as a separate. Whether we keep this article separate or not, we need to fix issue with the definition of "jailbait images". here are the problems I see with the article as it stands:

• Like User2346 said above, the definition of jailbait images as used on the internet seems to be both broader then the article states and narrower then the article states. While they can be "sexualized" many such images posted to would not meet the most common definition of "sexualized", other then solely in the minds of the person posting them and/or the intended viewer, something possible with any image of underage teen. As such, jailbait images can be include "sexualized images of minors who are perceived to meet the definition of jailbait." but also non-sexualized images that are perceived to meet the definition of jailbait.
• The article states the "Jailbait images can be differentiated from child pornography as jailbait images do not usually contain nudity.". As commonly used, the term jailbait image explicitly excludes nudity, (though maybe there is an issue with how the term nudity is being used here). Maybe some nude images involving minors are being posted to jailbait image sites, though such sites generally prohibit nudity but that does not make them jailbait images as commonly defined. Given that many people, at least in English speaking countries, incorrectly think that any form of underage nudity makes it illegal (such as underage nudist photos or baby/toddler naked in the bathtub), it may be some people confuse sites that publish legal if controversial underage nude photos such as sites publishing legal family nudist photos with jailbait photo sites. Both can attract those interested in "legal" photos of underage sexually attractive girls, the term jailbait photos tends to be used for types of photos commonly thought to be legal (even if not all first amendment/free speech lawyers agree on the certain of that) not controversial but legal underage nudes.
• Some images posted to jailbait image sites clearly do not meet the usual definition of sexualized or feature adults who only appear underage (i.e. pass for jailbait) and thus pretty clearly do not qualify as child porn (nor are they otherwise illegal in and of themselves) under any U.S. law. That means we cannot nor should not imply, as the article currently does, that jailbait images as a whole are illegal (in the U.S. at least) but rather that "sexualized" images of teens/tweens may be illegal (under the age of 18). Also, the legal issue if one of the U.S. and not necessarily other jurisdictions/countries. Such pictures hosted outside the U.S. might be legal in other jurisdictions and as such not illegal if hosted in that other jurisdiction though it might be illegal for American's to view, download, upload, or share them. If anyone knows any U.S. court cases relating to anyone being prosecuted (and especially convicted) for viewing, downloading, uploading, or sharing sexualized non-nude "jailbait pictures" alone (i.e. not possessing said images in addition to clear child porn, then we can add those cases to support the claim some have made about certain types of jailbait images being legally child porn despite being non-nude.
• When it says in the article "The legal status of jailbait images is controversial." that only applies to such images that may cross the line legally in and of themselves not images referred to as "jailbait photos" but which would otherwise be clearly seen as legal by lawyers or laypeople. Also, at least in the U.S. the legality of a photo of an underage person (as defined under CP law) is not dependent on the context it's posted or whether it's describe as sexual/arousing or not. An exception exists for photos falsely claimed as/presented as CP as that would violate a federal law prohibiting even just attempting to obtain what one believes is CP (even if it's not). Thus legal photos of under 18 teens would not become illegal simply because of being posted to a jailbait photo site or having a description underneath describing the as sexy (or whatever). So we need to clarify that the legal status of some jailbait images is controversial in the U.S. unless we can also site other countries have expressed similar questions of their legality (in part or whole).
• When the article says "Self-identified pedophiles can be found in jailbait communities" are we talking about pedophiles in the strict medical/psychiatric sense, as in a adult who is sexually attracted to prepubescent minors, as separate from hebephiles and ephebophiles? At least a few jailbait sites prohibit the types of images of interest to a true pedophile. Certainly, self-admitted hebephiles and ephebophiles can and do exists on jailbait photo sites/forums that limit acceptable images to only sexually developed teens.
• When the article says "While the images may be legal, they are often considered to be in poor taste." we should clarify that it's the context the images of appearing in (i.e. on jailbait photo forums/sites, rather the necessarily the image in and of itself. Photos from a mommy blog post about their teen teen's pool party showing teens under 18 in a bikinis/swimwear would not illicit the same bad taste accuusation as in the former context (or at least not to the same degree).
• Many "jailbait pictures" on posted to "jailbait photo sites" come not only from Facebook but also Myspace, Instagram, and other sites where teens share photos of themselves.
• In some instances, the controversy seems to be more about the images being "stolen" from teen girls social media and reposted to a jailbait photo sites for guys to ogle rather then images themselves in their originally context. Example, photos taken of a 15 year old girl's birthday pool party showing girls in bikini's would not be controversial to the same degree as part of the Facebook post but would as part of an upload by someone other then owner of the account to a jailbait photo site. Part of the controversy is how the certain jailbait photo images are being promoted on jailbait photo websites whereas the photos in question would not be very controversial, if at all, in other contexts.

--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: If the article can be made more accurate in any way, by all means, expand or reword it. I don't disagree with most of the above comments, but can't help but think correcting any perceived problem is more constructive than just throwing the whole thing out. See WP:DINC. That being said I was against the article being split in the first place, so naturally I'd support merging it again. I don't have the time to work on it myself. Freikorp (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jailbait images. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012213707/http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web to http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)