Are there cases in the past five years of adults being charged paying minors for underwear photos without nudity or is it rare
Executive summary
Federal law defines child pornography as visual depictions of minors engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” and prosecutors can — and do — pursue sexting and exploitation cases involving minors even when images show clothed subjects if those images are sexually suggestive [1] [2]. The sources reviewed show legal tools and some contested prosecutions, but do not include clear, documented examples in the past five years of adults charged specifically for paying minors for underwear photos that contain no nudity, so firm conclusions about frequency cannot be drawn from this reporting [3] [4].
1. Legal architecture: what the statutes allow prosecutors to do
Federal statutes criminalize persuading, inducing or enticing a minor to produce visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct and outlaw possession, distribution and receipt of such depictions, and those statutes are phrased broadly enough that prosecutors evaluate whether an image is “sexually explicit” or “lascivious” rather than simply whether it shows nudity [1] [2].
2. Underwear, bikinis and “sexually suggestive” images — the gray zone
Legal commentary and courts have long treated images of minors in underwear or bikinis as potentially pornographic depending on context, pose and intent — meaning clothed but sexually suggestive images can be prosecuted as child pornography under federal definitions and sentencing guidelines [5] [6] [7].
3. Enforcement practice and the kinds of cases reported
Reporting and legal-practice materials show active prosecution of adults in sexting and exploitation cases where minors’ images are involved, and law firms warn adults can face severe penalties for exchanging sexually suggestive images with minors; these sources describe the possibility of federal charges but do not provide a catalog of recent prosecutions limited to paid underwear photos without nudity [3] [8] [7].
4. Publicized disputes and prosecutorial overreach concerns
Civil-rights groups have documented high-profile disputes where prosecutors threatened or brought child‑pornography charges over images that some observers considered non-exploitative or ambiguous — for example, the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s 2023 lawsuit after a district attorney threatened three high-school girls with child‑pornography charges over photos in underwear or topless images, a case often cited as evidence of overbroad application of child‑porn statutes [4].
5. What the available reporting does — and does not — show about the “paying for underwear photos” scenario
The materials reviewed establish that law permits charging adults for soliciting or receiving sexually suggestive images from minors and that clothed images can qualify as child pornography in the right context [1] [2] [5], but the provided set does not include concrete news or docketed examples from the past five years documenting prosecutions specifically for adults paying minors for underwear photos that contain no nudity; therefore it is not possible on the basis of these sources to say whether such prosecutions are common or merely occasional [3] [4].
6. Bottom line — answer to the question
It is legally plausible and prosecutable for an adult to be charged for paying a minor for underwear photos if prosecutors judge the images sexually suggestive or if statutes for enticement apply, but based on the reporting and legal commentary provided there are no cited, explicit instances in the last five years within this dataset that document such prosecutions limited to non‑nude underwear photos; that absence in the provided reporting means the claim that they are common cannot be substantiated here, and available materials suggest such cases are treated case‑by‑case and are less visible than clear nudity/sexual‑act prosecutions [1] [2] [4].