There were 5 of us sitting around in a circle in addition to the Sex Offender Program’s two counselors. We all have known each other for about a year, maybe two. Back then, I had no real interest in keeping track of time. For the obvious reasons.

For most of that time, I had listened very carefully to the conversations that we would have each week. My 4 friends had taken turns going over their situation, their emotions, their history, their charges, and just about every aspect of their lives. For me, however, the only thing they knew about me were my charges. I wasn’t really interested in going over my case, my emotions, my history, or really, anything about me in these therapy sessions. My session buddies did all know, for the most part, about all of me outside the therapy sessions. But in the therapy sessions, I was not comfortable at talking about me in an open forum where Law Enforcement people could ask questions and make criticisms. But that’s okay. As they said, I had plenty of time to work up the courage. So, on the day that I am referring to here, I had worked up the courage. But my session didn’t really go the way that the two counselors had expected it to go.

I held up a magazine cut out a two little girls kissing. It was from my personal collection. Completely legal, just a close up of two little girls kissing each other as friends. Certainly nothing sexual about it. As I began to talk, I passed it around. It eventually got to the counselors who held onto it as I spoke.

“Does anybody consider that photograph to be pornographic?”

One fellow jokingly replied, “Well, if you move the camera back a little bit, take their clothes off, let them play with each other, then yeah, that would be pornographic.”

There were chuckles all around. The two counselors remained a bit stoic and said nothing. So I pushed the issue.

“So for all intents and purposes, this is a perfectly normal photograph of two little girls. Am I right?” I address that to the counselors.

Again, silence. So I asked for comment directly.

“There’s nothing pornographic about this photo. But I think we all know that.” Very counselorish.

“But what if I told you, for me, I was sexually excited just looking at them? I mean, for example, that I regularly masturbated while I looked at this exact photograph.”

“Then, for you, it’s pornographic.”

“Then what would the law think? Would I be guilty of breaking any laws?”

“No, there’s no law against this photograph.”

“Even if the law knew that, for me, it was definitely pornographic, and that I was abusing the photograph?”

My buddy, across from me, gave a huge belly laugh. “How in the hell can you abuse a photograph? It’s a piece of paper! You can tear it up into pieces and set it on fire and throw it in the trash can if you want. You can’t abuse something like that. It’s an inanimate object.”

I looked at the counselors questioningly. “Is it abuse?”

“You not using the photograph for what it is intended. In that sense, it is abuse.”

“But the two little girls in this photograph are not being harmed, are they?”

The counselor grew quite serious. “I can see where you’re going with this. If the two little girls were being abused in order to take this photograph to create pornography, then yes, the two little girls are being harmed.”

“So if they were both naked and doing things in a sexual way, then it would be pornography. And they would be, according to you, abused. They would be harmed, right?”

“Yes.”

“So the photographer would probably end up going to jail. But, why would I? All I’m doing is looking at it.”

“Because, while you are not creating the initial crime, you are perpetuating it. The two little girls are being victimized not only by the photographer, but by you as well since the photographers are creating this photograph for you. Or, rather, people like you.”

“But what if I told you that the photograph of the two little girls kissing was taken in 1943, in Belgium. The photographer, indeed, was abusing the two little girls since they were naked and doing sexual things. You just didn’t see that in this photograph. All you can see is the close up of them kissing. The true story, depicted in other photographs in the collection, clearly shows that the two little girls were doing sexual things. So yes, it was pornography. But I’m going to throw the question at you again. If I masturbated to this exact photograph, this close-up, obviously not showing any sexual activity, why would I have to go to jail? The two little girls died about 10 years ago of old age. They no longer exist. They can’t be harmed in any way.”

“You are still abusing the photograph. If they were shown in sexual positions, then it would be illegal pornography.”

“Why?”

“Our laws have been instituted to prevent this type of pornography from being created. The creation of that pornography would be abusive to the individuals. Harmful.”

“But they are dead. They don’t exist. The photo does. But the two little girls do not. How can that be harmful to them?”

“Our laws are written to prevent this type of pornography.”

“Okay. So photographs of true pornography are illegal. But let’s take it a step further. What if the other photographs showed that the two little girls were completely clothed and playing in a playground amongst other people? Certainly no sexual connotations to anything that was being done, or photographed. This one photograph, however, just shows the close-up of the two little girls kissing innocently.”

“Then it would not be considered pornography.”

“And again, what I told you that I was masturbating to this photograph. Would it be pornography?”

“For you, yes.”

“An illegal?”

“I suppose not.”

“So, as you see these two little girls kissing innocently, and I told you I was masturbating to them, and then I told you that was a part about pornographic collection, would this particular photograph be pornographic, specifically illegal?”

“Going by just this photograph, then no.”

“So my pornography is not illegal?”

“You are getting into a gray area.”

“I love gray areas. I’m going to show you another picture.” I chuckled, “it’s not pornographic.”

I had another image from a magazine showing a very shiny Harley-Davidson motorcycle parked in a parking lot. I held it up, showed it around, and passed it to the male counselor and smiled. “I know you like motorcycles so you can keep this picture.”

He smiled and accepted it.

“Now what if I told you that the image that you are holding in your hand is a photograph of a photograph. Would you believe that?”

Everyone agreed that it could have been a photograph of a photograph.

“Now what if I told you that the image that you’re holding in your hand is a photograph of a painting. I know that it doesn’t look like a painting, but believe me, in reality, it is an oil painting done by a single artist over the course of 5 years. If you stand more than two feet away from this full-sized oil painting, you cannot tell that it is not a photograph. This is called photorealism. And many people throughout the world do this as a hobby. Some of these oil paintings are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Simply because they are oil paintings.”

The looks of disbelief were on everybody’s faces. But I assured them, this was a photograph of an actual oil painting. The reflections in the chrome on the motorcycle, the pebbles on the road, the light glinting off the spokes, and the subtle hue changes in the sky and clouds, all of this was a picture-perfect duplication of an actual photograph. In oil paint.

“Now, what if I told you that the artist who did this did it from memory? Actually, he did go by a photograph. However, for the hypothetical question here, what if he didn’t have a photograph?”

The counselor continued to stare at the magazine clipping. “This is very impressive if it’s an oil painting.”

“I’m going to show you another image, if I may.” I took out a magazine clipping, albeit a little bit small, of the child’s hand that was resting lightly on what appeared to be a kitchen table. In the out of focus distance, was probably a bowl of soup. “What if I told you that this is a photograph of part of a sexual scene where the little girl is kissing, most inappropriately, an older individual?”

I got questioning looks.

“Was the little girl being abused? Was she being harmed?”

Everyone was silent except the counselor, “I think everyone would agree that the little girl is being abused and this would be considered illegal.”

“What if I told you that it was not a photograph but a painting? What if I told you that it was photorealism and that there was no real photograph? What if I told you that this oil painting came exclusively from the artists mind? Would you still think the little girl was being abused?”

The silence lasted for about a moment and then the counselor replied, “it’s not a question of any little girl being abused or harmed, it’s a question of is it legal or illegal. And since you have explained that it is a sexual scene, that it would definitely be illegal.”

“Even though it’s only a painting?”

“Still illegal. That’s what our law says.”

“Who is being harmed here? There is no people being harmed here.”

“It still illegal because of what it depicts. Illegal activity.”

“Why? Why is depicting something illegal, itself illegal?”

“Our laws are written to prevent harm being done to another human being.”

“So a picture of a man being shot through the head by a sheriff in the city streets of Vietnam is okay? But a pencil drawing of two stick figures simulating an adult having sex with a child is not okay? The man being shot died. The pencil used to make the two stick figures is nothing more than wood, graphite, and the paper is from a notepad. The simplistic image just happens to come from a human being expressing his thoughts. What is good? What is bad? What is art? They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How was that being applied to the law here?”


Regarding this post and every post I write about myself describing my past, be advised that I was tried, convicted, sentenced to a very long time in prison, and I served the complete sentence. Be further advised that I am no longer practicing illegal activities today and that I refrain from doing so by my own choice, not from fear of legal entanglements or society's outrage. I remain crime free because I choose to.