Talk:Breast/sandbox

Images
Some pictures of human breasts:

Guidelines
From WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines

While there may be several images available on a given topic, multiple images of the same thing don't usually add to the quality of the article. (See, for instance, version of the tribadism article.) Exceptions to this would be something like Breast - Size, Shape and Composition. If someone introduces a new image that already is represented, we should move it to the talk page, and discuss which, or how many images are appropriate, and go with consensus. Some articles have an abundance of images, more than really is needed to make the point. Public nudity might be one of these, where Naturism seems about right. Anytime a new image is proposed to be added, or is added without discussion, we can put it on the talk page, and begin a discussion about adding it. The main focus should be whether the new proposed image adds quality to the article, and is a better choice than alternatives to illustrate the given point. Of course random people are going to throw images in articles all of the time. But if we have a guideline that we can apply, we can forestall people throwing their own vanity image, or favorite image over the one we have established for the lead image for an article. When they do that, we can move their image to the talk page, give a quote of our guideline, and a link to it, and begin a discussion as to whether this image is a better image than the one previously decided on.
 * Use only the image that best illustrates the point
 * Additional images should add additional information
 * Existing images shouldn't be replaced without a consensus

And also:
 * Photographs or video of sexual acts should be hidden behind links
 * When possible, avoid images that are likely to offend
 * Artwork is preferred over photographs
 * Avoid photographs that make the people easily identifiable
 * All photographs and videos should be labeled honestly
 * No images created by, or including, Wikipedia editors


 * I think it is worth noting for the record that this guideline is not Wikipedia policy, and in fact certain parts of it are controversial as written. Although this is not the place for discussing the content of the guidelines specifically (that would be on its own page), I think it's improper to have it here without noting that it is a proposed guideline only, and not gospel. -Kadin2048 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Breasty
I do not think that showing photos of the breasts actually improves the quality of the article. Instead, I would suggest that only accurate drawings be provided. It would not deter from the quality at all and would protect peopel from possible offence. Toepoke 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * seriously, do you people even read everything else on the page?--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 16:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead Image
The lede paragraph of the article, and the lede image draw the attention of the reader, It should be visusally interesting, and if possible represent the topic as well as can be done.

The current image being used for lede: I would like to use this image for lede, replacing the existing image which might be useful elsewhere in the article.


 * disagree, the current lead image is fine.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Honeymane. Full disclosure:  IIRC I am the editor who added the current lead image, so I am obviously in favor of its inclusion.  Kasreyn 02:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the two choices (Closeup of female breast.jpg or the Manet painting), I prefer the Closeup, so I concur with Kasreyn and Honeymane. However, I'm not particularly satisfied with it overall. A photo is certainly better than a painting (I think it's absolutely ridiculous that an article on "Breasts" wouldn't have a clear, informative photograph of breasts, at the top of the article), but that photo isn't the greatest. I understand, though, that it was arrived at as a sort of compromise between people who felt that a more clinical image was objectifying women and the female body as medical objects, and other people who thought a more aesthetically pleasing / erotic photo was objectifying women as sex objects. Obviously, there is a razor's edge there, that we have to run. The breasts are both an anatomical feature, a method for feeding offspring, and a sex organ / erogenous zone; the "Lead Photo" has to try to encompass all of those roles in one image. It's difficult, to say the least, and I think the current image is the closest to it I've seen. -Kadin2048 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the lead image is good in many ways, I am a bit bothered that it is an altered breast (with a clear surgery scar). If a picture of similar quality both in aesthetics and photography could be found, but of an unaltered breast, I think that would be better. Guardian 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The person who took the picture clearly stated that they were unaltered.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes well they are clearly wrong. Look at the image full size, there is a HUGE scar running up around the closer breast. Guardian 03:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are clearly wrong. According to the user who took the picture, that's a bra line; the discussion is logged on the breast's talk page, go find it for yourself.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, not a chance. That is a scar. It looks like a scar.  It does not look like a bra line.  It is not in a remotely reasonable place to be a bra line.  It is not remotely a reasonable size for a bra line.  The more I look the more sure I am, it is a scar.  Guardian 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the simple answer is that your full of yourself. Why don't you show me concrete proof that it is in fact a scar, and not a bra line. This topic has been done to death by better people then you and I, and they've agreed that it is not a scar, or at least assumed good faith that the photographer is telling the truth.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate how you are raising the level of discourse by insulting me. I am not full of myself for having an opinion that I am confident of.  I am allowed to do both of those things without being open to ridicule.  I haven't been able to find this discussion you mention, perhaps you can point its location out to me. Guardian 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are if you continually claim to be right in face of all evidence, and then have the gall to claim that the person who took the picture had no idea if the breast was fake or not. The discussion in question is located at Talk:Breast/Archive_2--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Still not sure at what point I was presented with "all evidence", but I read that other discussion. I have to agree with the final message there that she must have been wearing the worst-fit bra of all time.  And yes, despite "all the evidence" of some random person claiming to have taken the picture, I still look at that and think that it is too sharply defined with too small of a width to be caused by a bra.  I can honestly say that no amount of random claims by people on the internet will convince me of what my eyes and brain just don't see.  It still doesn't look like a bra mark to me.  Whatever. Guardian 07:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I finally noticed the link to the Flickr page and I will admit they are real looking in the other pictures. That is the most screwed up bra mark....ever.  Bah! Guardian 07:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guardian 07:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actual female weighing in here ;) There are many methods of making a 3D bra cup out of 2D fabric - one of which involves a seam up the side of breast, similar to the seam shown here: http://www.spiritofnature.co.uk/acatalog/n3026_3027.jpg I wouldn't be surprised if it was an indent from a poorly-fitting underwire bra (breast enlargement during pregnancy could have caused the poor fit) either. Furthermore, if you look closely, under the nipple, you can see a denim-like indented pattern from the knit of the bra fabric. Also, placing an incision in that area for breast implants is completely unheard of, and such a large and obvious scar would be ludicrous. This looks nothing like a scar, and more like what I see more often than not when I take off my bra after wearing it for a few hours :) Kludger (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Guardian 07:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would consult a Suregon. How often does a suergon place implants through a scar. Scars are usually on the aeroleas or the undercreavece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.109.163 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(Moved this discussion over from normal talk page, as I didn't realise this separate page existed. BrainyBabe 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

I have exchanged the lead photo with that for the section on breastfeeding. BOth show pregnant women's breasts, but I thought the previous lead photo was more alluring than strictly necessary in an encyclopedic article. The model appears to be half-reclining, the photo is cropped so little is visible but that part of the torso, there's a dappled background, etc. The one currently on the lead is more "factual" - a profile view from waist to neck, with no prettification. If you wish to revert or suggest other possible changes, please discuss here first. BrainyBabe 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Swapped them back. Whether or not a photo is "alluring" is subjective.  Image:Breast 6 months pregnant.jpg is a small, low-resolution image.  Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg is a large, high-resolution image.  A better image deserves a higher placement.   J o ie de Vivre  °  17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And whether an image is "better" is subjective as well -- I gave three reasons why I thought Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg was somewhat come-hither. I am not convinced it is better, ie adds more to the Wikipedia project, in the conteext of this article. BrainyBabe 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not subjective. One image is well-lit, in clear focus, and is a large,  high-resolution image.  The other is tiny, dim, and comparatively blurry.   J o ie de Vivre  °  17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even at this level of factual discussion I must disagree. I'm currently using Internet Explorer, and in that browser the former photo does not appear well-lit -- the far breast is out of focus, and the near one has deep shadow on its underside.  The latter photo is clear and evenly lit, and does not appear blurry to me. BrainyBabe 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend you get the Firefox browser, it's fantastic. You can't see the far breast in the other photo either.  The smaller photo is not as clear as the large one, if you click through to the image itself, one image is of very high resolution and the other is not.  J o ie de Vivre  °  18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Joie de Vivre that Image:Closeup of female breast.jpgis a higher-quality photo. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1 Anatomy


Although I like both of these images, does having both of them add value, or is one of them sufficient? Atom 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, We have another image we could add that is similar in the gallery above, would it be better than either of these? Should we consolidate to one image, say the one on the right, since it is labelled? Atom 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the image on the right, as it has labels to define the anatomical parts. Without labels, the lefthand image is not particularly useful to the lay person. Kasreyn 02:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that someone added labels to the left image. The one on the right suffers from JPEG damage. Please use a lossless format for images with text or line art! --Strait 09:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The left image is better, as an image, but I can't vote for it without labels to indicate the various structures. So for now, I think the right one is better. If the left one was labeled, and displayed on the page in a size that allowed people to see the various structures as clearly as they can see the ones in the right image, then it would be the clear choice. -Kadin2048 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

2.1 Breastfeeding and pregnancy


I like the image to the left, breastfeeding, very much. I think it should remain. The image on the right would be great if it were a frontal view so that we could see the breasts and see them in comparison, etc. This view doesn't really show very much related to the article, or the section. It does seem to be a pregnant woman, I'll give it that. Atom 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the image to the left above, it adds to the article. I feel that the image to the right above adds little of value to the article. --Matthew 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I discussed adding this image to the article with MotherAmy. I am not sure if it would go in this section, ore replace one or both images, or in another section. Based on the topic of this section it fits here best.


 * If this were a real person in the image above it might provide a better replacement for Breastfeeding.jpg to the above left, but as it is it seems to stylized to add much of value. --Matthew 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that only images of actual breastfeeding, ie a mother and a baby, ought to be in this section. A possible exception to this rule might be the inclusion of an image showing a woman using a breast pump or other method of expressing milk; this would not be a very high priority for me, though. However, since breastfeeding is one of the principle natural purposes of breasts, it is important that we have a photo explicitly showing breastfeeding. Breastfeeding.jpg does this quite capably. I find it superior to the Cassat painting in informativeness, but the Cassat painting ought to stay, too, as it shows the aesthetics of breastfeeding. But if it had to be one or the other, I'd go with breastfeeding.jpg. Kasreyn 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

3 Size and shape
Why was this removed from the article? Ixrs 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

3.1 Shape and support


I think the key issue in this section is that we could collect literally hundreds of images that show differences in shape and support. The key element is the text of the section, and having one good image that represents the section on shape and support well. One image that fits well is essential. Then, after that, how many other images are needed to represent the section? Is one sufficient? Two? More? We don't desire to have just a collection of images. So the key question is, how many images are needed to support the text of the article?

In the specific case, I like both images. If one of these, or the selection in the gallery above were choices as one image to represent the section on "Shape and Support" I would choose the second (Weibliche-brust). But, that's just my opinion. Atom 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing I can't tell from visual examination: in Ptosis.jpg, what is the position of the woman's abdomen? Is she leaning backwards against a bright background, or is her abdomen covered by some white garment or covering? It almost looks like her torso has been severed. Kasreyn 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ptosis.jpg seems to have been taken with some sort of strange lens which distorts the perspective. I don't like it. Also, it's being considered for deletion... --Strait 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ptosis image was deleted, see as a copyvio. Atom 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

3.3 Changes
Image:Stretch marks on female breast.jpg

Same comments here about one image to represent the section well. Given the two choices here, I like the "Breast and nipple changes during late pregnancy" image. The stretchmark image is not as good a quality as I would like. Atom 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This image kind of smells of cheap porn, It would be really nice if a better image was availible. --Matthew 05:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't see that at all. How is a young pregnant woman porn?  There is no action or anything in the photo, and no other people.  It is visually interesting too.  Each to their own opinion, I guess.  Atom 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get the porn angle from this, although I don't think it's a great image. It would be better if it were straight-on, rather than from 45-degrees like it is. But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of alternatives, so I think it ought to stay for right now.
 * At risk of bringing up an idea that might really get the squeamish readers riled, it seems odd to have a section on breast changes and not consider something that shows the breast changes during puberty. It doesn't need to be a photo, because I think that would be hard to find, but there are innumerable line drawings -- the sort of thing that (used to be, anyway) in every 6th graders' Health class book?
 * The three major "changes" that come to mind, when I think of breasts, are (1) Puberty, (2) Pregnancy, and (3) Aging. We sort of have a photo for #2, although I'm not sure how representative it is of a pregnant woman's breasts, but it seems like it would be good to turn up diagrams or photos for #1 and #3. I think a photo of the breasts of an older woman, showing the natural effects of gravity, would also go a long way towards alleviating the accusations that we're perpetuating unattainable, Barbie-like breast ideals here. -Kadin2048 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think WP:NOT#CENSORED is known to all particpants here, and calling this image "porn" - I don't know how you get that idea. It is a naked breast, nothing more and nothing less. Charon X /talk 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

4 Plastic surgery
These are possibilities for this section, although a better image would be nice.
 * The "1200cc Breast Implants.jpg" to the left is nice in that it shows actual implants, sadly, it doesn't show much, it would be better in the picture had been taken front on nude and had the person's face cropped out for privacy. I'm actually a big fan of "Breast implants.png" as it clearly differentiates submuscular versus subglanular implants. --Matthew 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The righthand image is nice, but could do with labels explaining the anatomical significance of submuscular and subglandular implants (or possibly a caption). The righthand photo is about the best balance of informativeness and tastefulness we are likely to see (tastefulness being difficult to obtain in these images).  However, I predict there would be significant resistance to the use of 1200cc Breast Implants.jpg; from what I've seen, whenever an image of large or augmented breasts is added to the wiki, accusations of prurient interest quickly follow.  The question is how much of this is worth braving in order to have a photo of augmented breasts.  Kasreyn 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree on both counts. But, my perception was that the value (despite the unusual angle of the shot) was that it showed no nipples, and so might be more acceptable to the prudish viewer.  You are probably right that someone would be upset by it, but someone is always upset about nearly every image.  Given a choice of these two, the on on the right seems more appropriate.  Atom 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote for the right-hand image, comparing the submuscular and subglandular implants, although I agree with Kasreyn that it could do with some labeling. As for the left-hand image, I agree that it would be nice to get some kind of a photo of augmented breasts, but I see a number of problems with this image. First, the angle is bad, and the clothing is distracting. It seems like the boob equivalent of an upskirt photo; there's a certain type of objectification going on here. Second, the size of the breasts in question isn't really representative of most augmented breasts, and I think would be almost inherently NPOV in terms of making augmented breasts seem unnatural and gargantuan. Optimally, we'd have both a diagram showing a cutaway of the placement of submuscular/subglandular implants, and also a well-lit, informative, nonpornographic shot of augmented breasts themselves. I suspect that a more "professional" or "encyclopedic" image of implanted breasts would probably engender less criticism from the prudes than one where it's obvious the woman is pulling up her shirt, and it looks like she's flashing the camera. -Kadin2048 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

6 Cultural status


I like this image, and it fits this section very well. Atom 14:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is fine, but the title is overly vague. Cultural status?  It's an almost meaningless phrase when applied to a single portion of human anatomy.  Perhaps "Cultural Perceptions" might be a more apt alternative?  Kasreyn 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

7 Disorders


I like this image, but does it belong in this section? I guess it is about breast health. Atom 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this image would be substantially improved if it was in english, as it is it doesn't seem to add much, as I can't read what it says. A caption translating the text might help, but I don't think it would solve the problem. --Matthew 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The image could easily be replaced with a modern public-health image on the same topic. I'm sure there are plenty of public-service ad images out there which advise women to get a breast exam (I'm assuming that's what the image suggests; I can't read the text).  This being the English wiki, an ad in English might be more appropriate.  Kasreyn 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. But, I still like the art deco style of the image, and the intepretation is amusing (to me).  Atom 02:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The image and its accompanying translation (is that really what it says, about washing nipples in cold water? Or is that vandalism?) is interesting, but it might be more appropriate for a historical subsection of the "disorders" section (although I'd prefer calling the section "Health" instead of "Disorders"). A more modern image about breast health would definitely be preferable. Maybe even a US Government image about Breast Health Awareness week or something? A quick Google turned up this:, which is pretty terrible, but maybe something like it would be better? --Kadin2048 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked it with a Russian-speaking friend, and it does really say that. However, she had no clue why. --Jenste 26.6.2007

7.3 Malignant diseases
What are Intramammary nodes and can they be cancerous? I just had an ultrasound done on both breast and it shows that a lymph node from Oct fo 05 was only .57 cm big now it is 2.3 cm x 8 mm in the axilla which is where it was before. I have several other masses in both breast more in the left than right. Please help and give me a peace of mind I hve a MRI scheduled on the 26 because there not sure whats exactly sure is on the right side. signed a scared, but a very faithful follower of The Almighty Father.

Image Legality
This image is of a YOUNG girl (Teen, since it is agenst federal law to display Child Pornography, I am removing this image. Please dont revert edit, i feel i am justified by doing this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger1991 (talk • contribs)
 * Where do you have proof that the image is from a minor? A heavily cropped image like this one cannot clearly be aged to any degree. mrholybrain 's talk 22:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I want more images in the article but I draw the line with child pornography. The pictures seems like a very young women. This is disgusting. -- MotherAmy 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And what proof do you have that this is a child, other than that the breasts are not large? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the picture if of an under-aged girl, I don't know how you can justify calling it "pornography". For one thing, pornography is sexual. The picture doesn't even distantly imply anything sexual in any way. There's no law against photographs of under-aged naked people, so long as the pictures aren't sexual or pornographic in nature. This clearly isn't.

Anyway, there's no basis whatsoever for saying that it's actually a picture of an under-aged girl's chest. You just plain don't know.

"Please dont revert edit, i feel i am justified by doing this."

Don't tell us that you "feel" that you're justified. Tell us why you're justified. This is an encyclopedia, and there's no room for your feelings in the editing process.

Take a close look at this picture. Both of these pictures above have a similar look to them. Take a look at the background color. Both pictures have a similar background color. Both pictures do not look completely natural. They both look like they have been modified. Both of the pictures have been touched up using some type of photo shop program. I'm not stupid. Who added these pictures. One of the pictures was added by a suspected sockpuppet. Over the last six months or so, pictures have been added to this article article by problably the same user but using different user names: I suspect. The picture does not look natural and we should be precautionary with using under age photos or images from a suspected sockpuppet. A scandal waiting to happen. -- MotherAmy 00:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the contributions of the user who put the under age photo in the article. -- MotherAmy  00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have given a chance for anybody to justify for the preceived under age photo to remain in the article. The onus is on those who want to include the child picture. There is a perception problem with the photo. It looks like a very young girl and it was added under suspicious circumstances. We should error on the side of caution. All under age photos are illegal and sick. We should not take our chances with photos like this. Only perverts would enjoy having this type of picture in the article. -- MotherAmy 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should put up pictures of American flags instead. Joie de Vivre 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously, though, the person in the "pregnancy" photo does appear to be missing her arms, and this article already has eight (count 'em!) images, so I don't have a problem removing this image. Joie de Vivre 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is only child pornography if the picture is an underage person acting sexually provocative or lascivious display of genitals. This is neither. "All under age photos are illegal and sick." So, the pictures in the medical encyclopedia I have downstairs is child porn? Uh oh, I'm in trouble. The only reason I can see you having a problem with this is that you find breasts to be an inherently sexual thing, which is a personal opinion and not something that needs to be on Wikipedia. 70.43.199.66 17:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with others here. There is no legal issue with regards to child pornography in the US and many other countries. If this image was illegal, so would the books of David Hamilton (photographer) and others. But they're not. Personally, I think this image should be excluded simply because it's not that great quality. Also, the copyright status is somewhat unclear. Someone should at least try talking to the original uploader to try and ensure it's really their own work. However if we were to get a better quality image with a clear copyright status, I don't see any reason to exclude it. Nil Einne 15:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no way to tell the age of the woman in the photograph; she's obviously under 50 but the people insisting that she's too young to have her picture on Wikipedia need to get a life. It's an article about breasts, here's a picture of breasts. Even if someone were to insert a picture of undeveloped or immature breasts (which this is not) that would not be inappropriate or necessarily 'illegal' in an encyclopedia article about breasts.


 * There is nothing about the first image or the second that indicates they are of minors. To assume that small breasts = underage is insulting to every grown woman who has small breasts. On the contrary, the nipple and areola both appear fully developed, indicating that the subject is most likely an adult. Please keep your ignorant assumptions off Wikipedia. 24.118.61.66 05:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what the crap. I've seen lots of women with weird little breasts like that.  They come in all shapes and sizes.  To insist that this photo is "clearly" of an underage girl is absurd. 65.183.135.166 07:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed OGG File from the page, it doesn't seem to play any role in the article. Hassmukh (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The person who orginally uploaded this image and other similar images were discussed before. Some of the other images were fake. One of the fake images in currently in the article. I think the image called Breast and nipple changes during late pregnancy.jpg is one of the fake images. -- MotherAmy 06:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fake image remains in the breast article. -- MotherAmy 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This image is NOT child pornography. The woman's age cannot be determined from this photo (and its ). Even if she was under 18, the image would not meet the legal definition of child pornography. Federal law defines child pornography in 18 USC 2256 (8), which requires a "visual depiction" (including a photograph) to show "sexually explicit conduct." "Sexually explicit conduct" is defined in 18 USC 2256 (2) as quoted below.

18 USC 2256 (2):
 * (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
 * (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
 * (ii) bestiality;
 * (iii) masturbation;
 * (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
 * (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
 * (B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
 * (i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
 * (ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
 * (I) bestiality;
 * (II) masturbation; or
 * (III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
 * (iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

If you want to argue something is illegal, justify your position with authoritative legal sources. I simply googled "USC child pornography". USC = United States Code. I quickly found the law at Cornell University Law School's online library. 96.25.92.119 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)