Art or thinly veiled kiddy porn?

Certainly, controversy is nothing new to the world of art where many struggling artists are desperate to be noticed--to stand out from the masses. When, however, is enough enough?

In recent times we've been forced to confront Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ"--I vividly recall how he lapped up every single drop of that media frenzy. Then we had Marc Quinn's "Alison Lapper Preganant" offending abled and disabled people alike--oh, but it got his name in the news, didn't it?

So, what exactly would some of these artists actually be prepared to do? Or, more importantly, what wouldn't they do? Isn't it a fact that some of them would smear their own faeces on a canvas if they thought for a moment that it may just gain them any kind of notoriety; a flash of fame?

Now sinking to all new depth of depravity and desperation, we're being forced to endure the self attention seeking antics of yet another one. Yes, little known--until now that is--Bill Henson and his lurid photographs of a naked twelve year old girl.

I'm both intrigued and disgusted that these "artists" and their supports assume that by labelling something so abhorrent as "art" it somehow should automatically become acceptable to, and even admired by, society in general.

Under any other circumstances these photographs would be deemed to nothing more than child pornography--a criminal act.

What kind of bubble are these people living in that they are so immunized and desensitised to our society's standards and values?

For these photographs to be taken, this man had to be in presence of an innocent and naked child--an innocent and naked twelve year old girl. Whether, or not, anyone else (her mother) was present doesn't for a moment negate the fact that these photographs were taken for the viewing pleasure and enjoyment of the 'artist' and those of his ilk.

And, finally, what would you think about someone who displayed this kind of outrageous 'art'/paedophile titillation in their home?

wow, i cant say how much i think something like that sounds really bad, a lil girl shouldnt ever have to be exploited like that,, makes me wonder wtf the worlds coming too when it alloows someone to get away with that kinda thing and call it art

its like insult to injury

I'm not completely convinced that Henson is a pederast. People are born naked and in some cultures nude children run around with the nude adults. I don't think nudity in itself is enough to make something pornographic. It's kind of strange, but on Youtube, you can see all kinds of foot-fetish videos, but nudity is forbidden. It raises the question to me, where is porn and when does something become porn (and in this case child porn).

In the US, the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act made virtual child porn illegal. The Supreme Court invalidated that part in 2002. THe reasoning was that the law could protect kids from exploitation, but could not restrict freedom of expression. which is why we treat kids differently than adults. Adults can protect themselves.

I find those child beauty pageants disturbing precisely because of the pervs who attend and the intentional sexualization of the kids. The kids don't seem to even notice they are being exploited - not that their ignorance excuses the poor judgment of their parents.

I admit I am uncomfortable with what Henson is doing. But assume that the under-aged model was not exploited. Assume she was a well-adjusted and mature young woman with nice, caring parents (I do not know this to be the case at all). Does that imply the crime (i.e. the pornography) is in my perception and not in the photograph, itself? Is it the titilation that we want to stop? A photograph is just a bunch of colored dots and isn't an actual person (though a person posed for it).

But to back up for a second, Alex's primary problem seems to be with the artists' habit of trying to shock. Artist do this because it has worked in the past. Parisian society was shocked by Dejeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia. But Manet was shocked by their shock. He wasn't even trying to shock. Now he is recognized as a genius. The lesson artists have extracted from this sort of anecdote is that if they are shocking, they are doing their job.

Unfortunately, Mapplethorpe already shocked us this way, so Henson isn't even doing that much. In a sense, by being shocked, you've given Henson the victory he wanted.

And I would NEVER have a picture like that hanging on my wall.

I went to an exhibition a few years back with pictures from ordinary magazines from the 70'ies full of pictures of naked children, all having fun. The whole point with the exhibition was to show that in the 70'ies pictures of naked children was assumed not to excite anybody sexually, so it didn't create a stir of any kind. They where just beautiful.

A friend of my parents, (who was an artist) in the 70'ies had pictures on the theme of Swedish summer on his walls at home. One of the pictures was of a giggling blond maybe 5 year old in nothing but yellow wellingtons. Nobody suspected him of paedophilia, and he wasn't/isn't. I still remember the picture. It was a great picture.

How did we end up in this mess? A situation where people think its wrong to find naked children beautiful? They are.

I've never had even a remote stir in my penis around anything younger than late teens. I overcame my sexual repressions a long time ago and I'm good at listening to what my penis wants. And this ain't it. Call me naive, but I think paedophilia is so extremely rare it's nothing we should get worried about. Sure, I'm only using myself as a measuring stick. But I think the world has gone off the bend here. I worry more about paedophilia witch-hunters on crusades to rid the world of its evils, rather than the paedophiles themselves. I've read a few blogs by Swedish self-proclaimed protectors of children. It's scary shit. I'm worried about our freedoms of speech eroding in the name of protecting our children.

I wouldn't be surprised if paedophiles are the result of sexual repression, as so much else. A bit like, if people fear their own sexuality and what other people will think, they might look for sexual partners who aren't in a position to judge them. So basically, maybe this is another one of those problems we make go away by just being more liberal and encouraging people around us to sleep around more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dorei67

I find those child beauty pageants disturbing precisely because of the pervs who attend and the intentional sexualization of the kids. The kids don't seem to even notice they are being exploited - not that their ignorance excuses the poor judgment of their parents.

---

I find those deeply disturbing to, but think of the kids. What little girl doesn't want to be a princess on a stage? If only for a day? No, they don't get they're being exploited, so why tell them? You don't need to watch. Just don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

I wouldn't be surprised if paedophiles are the result of sexual repression, as so much else. A bit like, if people fear their own sexuality and what other people will think, they might look for sexual partners who aren't in a position to judge them.

---

I'm thinking Catholic priest here for some reason. :rolleyes:

But seriously, I'm thinking Catholic priest here for some reason.

Repressing sexuality, as with most forms of repression, will lead to an explosion at some point in time. And it most likely won't be so pretty.

As far as photos and artwork of children go, it's the intent of the artist and/or viewer that makes it porn, I say. Sure, with some, the intent is so obvious, it's going to be considered porn no matter who looks at it. But a mom getting arrested for snapping a picture of little Jane in her first ever bath just shouldn't be. Same theory goes for the looking at it. Jane's mom sees said photo and only thinks, "aww!! my precious angel". But dillweed pedophile in the photo lab gets hold of it and makes a beeline for the bathroom stall. The eye of the beholder, as it were.

But for myself, I conclude with this- if any hint of sexuality is to be included in any way by anyone, leave the children out of it.

I think we need to recognize that even if pictures of naked children doesn't turn us on, it does turn on someone else. It doesn't matter how innocent of harm the intent of the painter or photographer was. The reality is that the end user twists those representations for their own use and urges. Heck, I remember as a kid talking with boys who beat off to the pictures of nude people in National Geographic.

A pedophile is attracted to children under the age of consent and the number of them is put at around 25% of the population (3% female, the rest male). Based on the large numbers of child sexual abuse, pedophiles aren't happy to just stick with those picture. They act and they act in ways that are harmful to children.

Consent is a bedrock concept for our community and it really disturbs me when those that can't consent are exploited. No person at the age of 12 can be considered "well-adjusted and mature." Certainly the parents should protect their child better but society at large has an obligation to step in when that protection is lacking.

I don't think the pictures are art.

I see nothing wrong with naked children - in real life or in photographs. I remember when it was commonplace for children to run round naked on the beach or in parks. No-one turned a hair. In fact, mothers approved bacause it meant at least one less nappy to wash, and the kids were happy not to have wet terries round their middle chaffing them whenever they moved.

Frequently those children would be photgraphed, and the "holiday snaps" would be shown to anyone willing to look. They saw nothing but kids enjoying themselves.

It has always been thus. Always, that is, until recently, when any stranger - especially male strangers - became the object of suspicion and fear. People began to believe the worst of everyone else, and to justify their paranoia, they repeated frequently distorted stories to each other about macarbe and vicious mistreatment of children. The more they talked about it, the more they believed it. Now they have lost the ability to trust people, and because of that, they have abandoned a standard of behaviour that has governed society for millenia. Nowadays, depravity is expected: maybe that's why we get it. It is, in fact, very rare, but the perception is that the next man on the street is on the prowl to whip up your kiddies and defile them. And the children are learning to be afraid.

So, I have to insist that not all catholic priests are paedophiles - some protestant ministers, some republican politicians, some Texan cowboys, some British aristocrats are also paedophiles. BUT IN EVERY CASE, NEARLY ALL OF THEM ARE NOT. And, frankly, I don't think there is very much anyone can do about those that are.

Now, as for art, it has been said that art is pretty much what you want it to be: a pile of bricks, a dead sheep; a portrait of a nude woman, a landscape: paintings of sailing ships battling at sea, soldiers killing each other at Ticonderoga. Photographs of pretty Victorian children at play, showing their petticoats and ribbons - photgraphs of lithe boys swimming naked in the river. Japanese manga. Some of these might not be high art. Some of them might even be in questionable taste. But if they portray children - clothed or unclothed - it doesn't make them bad for that reason alone.

Photograpers frequently show studies of men and women. Usually they are naked for at least some of the pictures. Generally, it is acknowledged that they are artful. It would be extremely cynical to brand it all as for the benefit of dirty old men who never had a girlfriend (... OK - I admit I do like looking at them ...)

Photographers also frequently produce studies of children. What is it that makes a picture of a nude girl on her 18th birthday artful but, had it been taken 24 hours earlier, kiddie porn? Why are big appealing eyes pornographic?

I have mentioned in anaother thread that my uncle photographed my sister when she was about 5, standing naked in a tin tub. In fact he took several photographs, most of which were full frontal and full body. My parents were not at all alarmed. In fact he had been recording my sister's reaction to the fact that the tub had sprung a leak and she was wondering were the water was going.

I KNOW my uncle did not take them for salacious reasons. I have very strong reasons to believe he never took those pictures into the bathroom to toss himself off over them. He took them to "tell a story".

Did my sister have her dignity taken away from her? Tosh if you think so! No more than my having my dignity stripped when I was made to act the role of a woman in the school play, and wear a dress and make-up (it was an all boys school). Just part of life's ups and downs.

But if he did have a wank over them, surely that's better than abusing my sister instead, isn't it? I'd rather pervs had access to as much printed porn as they can deal with if it helps them control their urges to abuse real children. Does it lead them on to do "other" things - to become abusers? I doubt it - not by themselves. Such people will become abusers anyway.

Meanwhile, is it art or not? It could be. What evidence is there that it is not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euryleia

I think we need to recognize that even if pictures of naked children doesn't turn us on, it does turn on someone else. It doesn't matter how innocent of harm the intent of the painter or photographer was. The reality is that the end user twists those representations for their own use and urges. Heck, I remember as a kid talking with boys who beat off to the pictures of nude people in National Geographic.

---

I hate to be dismissive. But so what? The interesting thing is if the child has come to harm or feels exploited now or in the future. If not, then who cares? I'd argue that the intent is important.

If you have to stop doing an act because it could potentially be used as porn to someone, you'd be completely paralysed from creating anything. Any person would be banned from appearing on camera or picture ever. Seriously. We all know fetishes vary a lot and can be really weird. ...paedophilia I'd certainly put among the really weird ones. I'd say fuck it. If they want to wank over holiday family snap shots they find on the net, good for them. I think it's distasteful, but trying to stop it legally will just do more harm than good.

In Sweden today we have a legal situation where a person who is below 18 and takes naked pictures of themselves, (which is all of them in today's age of digital cameras) and saves the pictures on their hard-drives, has to erase them when they turn 18 or they put themselves in a position where they can be put in jail for having child pornography. This is paedophilia witch hunt completely out of control.

I've got no love for paedophiles, but I think we should focus on the children. If they've come to harm, then we should get worried. If not, then we should back off no matter who's wanking to what. I think a good motto is, "only fights battles you can win".

wow, i cant say how much i think something like that sounds really bad, a lil girl shouldnt ever have to be exploited like that,, makes me wonder wtf the worlds coming too when it alloows someone to get away with that kinda thing and call it art

its like insult to injury

I disagree with densuri and alex braggi.
I feel you are taking emotivistic stand on the subject which is not et all reasonable, and surely in injustified.

In Sweden today we have a legal situation where a person who is below 18 and takes naked pictures of themselves, (which is all of them in today's age of digital cameras) and saves the pictures on their hard-drives, has to erase them when they turn 18 or they put themselves in a position where they can be put in jail for having child pornography. This is paedophilia witch hunt completely out of control.

I will say that age of consent cannot be a general issue. It depends on individual case. and every case should be considered individually.

As for example, here is a girl of 13 who lies about her age to get engage sexually with adult guys.

A 22-year-old man has been sentenced to a year in jail and five years probation after having sex with a 13-year-old girl who told him she was 18.

The girl did the same thing a year prior, when she was 12, and lied about her age to a 24-year-old man who was sentenced to five years in prison for having sexual relations with the minor.

Alisha Dean advertises herself on her Myspace page as 19 and divorced. The page has been marked private since the sentencing Tuesday, but one report said there is footage of Dean dancing and “shaking her womanly booty like she’s working the pole.”

WFTV News reported that Morris Williams had sex with Dean when he thought she was of legal age, but when her behavior tipped him off that she may have been younger than she said, he went to Dean’s father who told Williams his daughter was only 13. Dean’s father then called the police.

According to WFTV her family said she still stays out late. Another report stated that the Myspace page was only taken down the day after Morris was convicted.

source: http://www.allheadlinenews.com

furthermore, watching porn including children is not crime, crime if forcing children to work in porn without their consent.

for clearer views have a look here too http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reas...al-system.html
Age of Consent: Child Molestation and Legal System

I suspect it takes a willing man to believe a 12 y/o girl is a 24 y/o woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I suspect it takes a willing man to believe a 12 y/o girl is a 24 y/o woman.

---

Or one hell of a mature kid!

Personally, I'm staying away from anyone who doesn't look 40!

'Course, anyone under 50 will probably stay away from me. Or even RUN away!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rational Head

I will say that age of consent cannot be a general issue. It depends on individual case. and every case should be considered individually.

As for example, here is a girl of 13 who lies about her age to get engage sexually with adult guys.
[B]
A 22-year-old man has been sentenced to a year in jail and five years probation after having sex with a 13-year-old girl who told him she was 18.

---

I think that an adult has a responsibility to figure stuff like this out. Horniness and drunkenness is never an excuse for anything. I think kids often need to be protected from themselves. This case is no different.

A friend of mine used to work at a museum helping to archive and preserve photographs, mainly from the late Victorian/early Edwardian period. There was a controversy there (internally only) because some of the photos were of semi naked children. These photos were just ordinary family photographs from a variety of sources and the 'children' involved were, by the time these photos were being made ready for exhibition, all either dead or in their late 80's - 90's and yet it was still considered 'paedophilliac' to show them.

Its a tricky issue because it is all about perception. Yes, overtly pornographic photos of children are bad and should be heavily regulated. However, there has to be a limit. Could a father taking photos of his daughter on holiday and posting those photos in facebook or flickr be accused of child pornography? There has been a recent trend for media inspired frenzy bordering on mob mentality on issues such as paedophilia and these responses are rarely rational or sensible - inspired by the correct motives and ideals but powered by a darker aspect of humanity.

In the case presented, I would say it was not pornography so much as exploitation... there is a difference..

i was a child in the 70's too and ran around beaches naked in ous and relatives gardens, had pics taken of me etc...unfortunately one of the adult relatives i ran around naked in front of didnt find it artistic although he certainly found it sexy as a result it want just pictures he wanted.
it probably wasnt the nakedness that caused his sexual tendencies but you can bet it fuelled them! thats why to me pictures such as these are wrong...whats artistic about it anyway, how do the art critics/lovers 'interpret' that kind of art? when its naked women its often interpreted in a sexual context such as her curves represent, her posture represents, her eyes are lit with desire and seem to be saying (all comes across as a little sexual to me) maybe im not putting that across too well maybe it doesnt even matter lol but im sure most of you understand what im trying to say, and yea little girls often love posing for pics and being princesses , but how did she really feel inside when she was naked,ive a daughter and many people i know have daughters and they dont like being naked in front of their brothers let alone some virtual stranger and a man at that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

How did we end up in this mess? A situation where people think its wrong to find naked children beautiful? They are. .

---

perhaps because of children like me and all the many many others out there?...repression doesnt come from paedos sexuality but from the children who are too scared and repressed to tell!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icey

i was a child in the 70's too and ran around beaches naked in ous and relatives gardens, had pics taken of me etc...unfortunately one of the adult relatives i ran around naked in front of didnt find it artistic although he certainly found it sexy as a result it want just pictures he wanted.
it probably wasnt the nakedness that caused his sexual tendencies but you can bet it fuelled them! thats why to me pictures such as these are wrong...whats artistic about it anyway, how do the art critics/lovers 'interpret' that kind of art? when its naked women its often interpreted in a sexual context such as her curves represent, her posture represents, her eyes are lit with desire and seem to be saying (all comes across as a little sexual to me) maybe im not putting that across too well maybe it doesnt even matter lol but im sure most of you understand what im trying to say, and yea little girls often love posing for pics and being princesses , but how did she really feel inside when she was naked,ive a daughter and many people i know have daughters and they dont like being naked in front of their brothers let alone some virtual stranger and a man at that!
perhaps because of children like me and all the many many others out there?...repression doesnt come from paedos sexuality but from the children who are too scared and repressed to tell!

---

That's a fair point. But isn't children's sense of what is acceptable and not pretty closely linked to their age and what hormones are going through their skulls at what time? We all know a parent can go from being the "best ever" to an "idiot who doesn't get it" over night, by doing the exact same thing.

You don't really negate my arguments, do you? All I'm saying is that we should focus on the kids. If they don't feel exploited, (and obviously we have to use some adult judgement on their behalf, kids are fickle) all is good.

My whole point is to basically remove the focus on the paedophile. It doesn't really bother me that some dude is masturbating over any future daughter I might have. That day will come one day, and she'll love it. As a parent... worrying about things like that... is understandable.... but not particularly rational.

It's the difference between worrying what could be potentially used as porn to the deranged mind to worrying about what the kid feels.

....and call me a hippie. But I'll never think that thinking it's loaded to show your naked body is anything but a psychological block that takes plenty of hard-core brainwashing by the entire society, to be put into place to begin with. Until we learn it is shameful we'll never think it could be naughty. Feeling bad about showing your body in public can never be a normal psychological state. I mean.... we were just another species of monkey not that long ago. Clothes wasn't invented until just 30 000 years ago.

Sex is in the stance of the object. A smiling happy naked person jumping around innocently will never be porn. It needs some pouting and/or flexing.

Please, I would like to clarify a few points here, if I may.

No, my primary problem is not with publicity seeking artists. I cited this one simply because, in my opinion , he's managed to sink to all new levels.

Yes, I remember that US case of the virtual kiddy porn. It was Tom Creedy or Reedy's lawyers who claimed it wasn't kiddy porn because, while creating some of the filthiest and most sexually explicit images of minors ever seen on the net, not children were actually used or charmed. But, seriously, if you believe people were viewing his works for their artistic value, you'll probably also be waiting for Santa to drop down your chimney on the 25th December.

Had these latest shadowy and seductive images been of an adult woman there would be no issue here. A few people would have ogled them while pretending to appreciate their artistic value and everyone would have been happy. Oh, everyone except, of course, Bill Henson who would still be a little know artist.

When is it porn? Good question. Ok, I believe it becomes pornography when it's portrayed as sexual and it offends the senses and sensibilities of the majority of a community. It become child pornography when, in addition, a child or children are sexually exploited for the pleasure of adults.

I have absolutely no problem at all with adult porn. I love adult porn! Especially adult BDSM porn! It teases and titillates me! It makes me, as lover of bdsm, want to run out and grab a piece of that hot action for myself!!! Unfortunately, I fear images like the ones I've cited here, on this thread, may have a similar effect on pedophiles.

I wonder if it is being suggested that, because icey's relative used photgraphs of her for inappropriate purposes, my uncle should be on the Sex Offenders Register too.

... and my parents for permitting him to take pictures of my naked sister?

... and me, for keeping the photographs?

Yet not one of us has used the pictures for sexual stimulation or arousal - simply to record an amusing event.

Is it art? Yes, of a kind, although only a very low level of skill was required to take the pictures. The result is a pictoral story of a child's consternation as her bathwater disappears. But if that is not enough, then I would add that it also serves as a historical document of a well-remembered family event.

Isn't the solution to punish the offender, not everyone else?

The charm of these photgraphs is my sister's innocence, like a cherub that you would find in many paintings that are classed as high art. Had she been 18+ when the pictures were taken, they'd have had a much stronger claim to being pornographic.

My personal problem with many of the laws of pornography is that they are essentially nothing more than a veneer. I don't think a ban on child pornography (or indeed any pornography) will stop it being produced. Nor will sexual offender registers or any of the other measures that have been instigated. This is because sexual desires are implicit in our psyche and are often difficult to ignore. If they are suppressed, most people will find an alternative output or continue to use the previously illegal one regardless of the consequences. I suppose a question that has to be asked here is: If any aspect of BDSM became illegal, would you continue to do it? Recent responses to the 'violent pornography' laws seems to suggest that the majority will.

Now, I am aware that 30 years ago homosexuality was considered a mental illness (and before that it was illegal) and I personally think that this was a ludicrous state of affairs and am glad that it has been repealed so that we can have the diversity of sexual preferences we have today. However, I also consider that paedophillia *is* a psychological illness and therefore needs to be treated as such. Prison and even social ostrachism does not work (I am sure re-offending rates will back me up in this), what is needed is counselling and treatment. In other words, it is not the photograph or necessarily the photographer (it depends on how and why the photograph has been taken) that is to blame here but the person who looks at it with certain thoughts in mind and it is that mind which needs to be treated.

As for the 'artistic' photos, I agree... they are clearly designed to cause a shock. Sometimes this is what art is - something that causes us to face our social demons. However, I feel that these have been done purely for the publicity in much the same way as much modern art does - aiming for the sensation rather than the talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I wonder if it is being suggested that, because icey's relative used photgraphs of her for inappropriate purposes, my uncle should be on the Sex Offenders Register too.

... and my parents for permitting him to take pictures of my naked sister?

... and me, for keeping the photographs?

---

No, that not what we're talking about here at all. We're talking about sensual and seductive photographs of a naked prepubescent posing in a very adult manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Yet not one of us has used the pictures for sexual stimulation or arousal - simply to record an amusing event.

Is it art? Yes, of a kind, although only a very low level of skill was required to take the pictures. The result is a pictoral story of a child's consternation as her bathwater disappears. But if that is not enough, then I would add that it also serves as a historical document of a well-remembered family event.

Isn't the solution to punish the offender, not everyone else?

---

Yes, the perpetrator should be punished, but I'm not sure what you mean by "not everyone else"?

So, only a few dozen paedophiles view said photographs? Ok, let's say only a handful? Ok, let's be really unrealisitc and say only one paedophile drools all over them? Well, let me tell you, that's still one fucking paedophile too many for me!

Look, I really can't stress it enough, the photographs I've cited here, are seductive and sexualised photographs of a naked minor. Obviously, I most certainly can't post the photos here or supply a link, but I can assure you all they are very suggestive and sexual, and they are most certainly not happy snaps of a child frolicking in the garden, bath tub or anywhere else.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/this..._entertainment

Here a former Bill Henson model comes to his defence.

I can't really say much myself because I didn't find the pictures in question. But from the varied results in my search, it certainly doesn't seem to be an open and shut case.

I think I need to see them for myself before passing judgement.

Quote:

---

We're talking about sensual and seductive photographs of a naked prepubescent posing in a very adult manner.

---

... and where, exactly, do you draw the line? Isn't a picture of an innocent five year old standing naked in a tub capable of being erotic?

(I, personally, would draw the line where the child being photgraphed is being abused or exploited, but how the hell could I prove it? That's a whole other question. However, a naked fiver-year old, wearing lipstick and eye liner, with one hand raising her hair and the other on her hip would certainly be indicative of exploitation if not abuse. But, think again of the tiny tots in the beauty contests already mentioned. That's exploitative too and maybe abusive. Perhaps I shouldn't link them - parents tolerate that kind of treatment, for the chance of fame or fortune.)

Art is art. It is meant to be stimulating. It is meant to be arousing. It isn't all good art, but it shouldn't be banned because it fails some arbitrary quality test. Bad art will die out of its own accord and it matters not that a bad artist achieves temporary notoriety for a while

Quote:

---

Yes, the perpetrator should be punished, but I'm not sure what you mean by "not everyone else"

---

Perpetrator = person using photgraphs for paedophilic gratification
Everyone else = people who would view the photographs to admire the innocent beauty of a prepubescent child.

A word of warning - although I'm sure you're all sensible enough. Your computer makes a record of all sites you visit. If you visit a site showing child porn, the evidence will be there, and I'm not sure that simply deleting your history, or even using "cleaning" software, will erase that record completely.

Furthermore, visitors to such sites are frequently monitored.

The one problem I keep bumping up against here is the definition of pornography.
Is it something that can be considered offensive? Offensive to whom? What some people consider offensive others may not.
Or is it something sexually arousing? Arousing to whom? What you may find arousing, I may find disgusting, or just bland.
So it seems that the authorities attempt to define it as something offensive to the community. But then, who's community?

I think that all here (or I hope all here) can agree that the sexual exploitation of children is criminal, without a doubt. But is posing children, whether clothed or nude, for photographic purposes necessarily sexual? Must we decide to ban such pictures just because one, or a dozen, or even tens of thousands might become aroused by them? By that rationale, we must ban any images which could be even remotely arousing to anyone. Which means just about anything!

We would have to ban wrestling, because there could be some pervert out there jacking off when the wrestlers are in a clinch. Or ban car commercials because some nut gets a hard-on while he watches that red Ferrari zoom over the road.

No, once you start trying to get into pornography you are opening a real can of worms.

What is art?
What is pornography?

Thanks, Thorne. I think you've hit on a fundamental truth here ... whatever truth is ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Certainly, controversy is nothing new to the world of art where many struggling artists are desperate to be noticed--to stand out from the masses. When, however, is enough enough?

In recent times we've been forced to confront Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ"--I vividly recall how he lapped up every single drop of that media frenzy. Then we had Marc Quinn's "Alison Lapper Preganant" offending abled and disabled people alike--oh, but it got his name in the news, didn't it?

So, what exactly would some of these artists actually be prepared to do? Or, more importantly, what wouldn't they do? Isn't it a fact that some of them would smear their own faeces on a canvas if they thought for a moment that it may just gain them any kind of notoriety; a flash of fame?

Now sinking to all new depth of depravity and desperation, we're being forced to endure the self attention seeking antics of yet another one. Yes, little known--until now that is--Bill Henson and his lurid photographs of a naked twelve year old girl.

I'm both intrigued and disgusted that these "artists" and their supports assume that by labelling something so abhorrent as "art" it somehow should automatically become acceptable to, and even admired by, society in general.

Under any other circumstances these photographs would be deemed to nothing more than child pornography--a criminal act.

What kind of bubble are these people living in that they are so immunized and desensitised to our society's standards and values?

For these photographs to be taken, this man had to be in presence of an innocent and naked child--an innocent and naked twelve year old girl. Whether, or not, anyone else (her mother) was present doesn't for a moment negate the fact that these photographs were taken for the viewing pleasure and enjoyment of the 'artist' and those of his ilk.

And, finally, what would you think about someone who displayed this kind of outrageous 'art'/paedophile titillation in their home?

---

Water board him--Oh, wait--wrong thread! But seriously, should we not call pictures of cattle, goats, chickens or the like, art? What if someone is turned on by photos of naked animals? Now that some fucker bent on beastiallity is turned on, should we not photograph animals?

I didn't, and won't, google the images in question, but it sounds harmless, unless you are a pedophile, and even then, is the child in question harmed because some sick pedophile likes the photo? I say, not unless the sick fucker stalks the child. If he does, then water board him, lol.

Howdy MMI. Thought I might find you in such a lively debate!

Hi, MrF

And but for the fact that I disapprove of ... ah well - you know all that ...

we are not a million miles apart on this one. I hope that doesn't disappoint you - lol.

Many people here at the forum, and generally, have asked when is a photo of naked child acceptable and when is it not? Well, it's obviously always going to be a grey area. It's a little like when is slapping a child harmless discipline and when does it become child abuse?

From my point of view, I think a picture of a nude baby or child is, generally, kind of cute and harmless. But if you don't feel it belongs in the family photo album; if you don't think it's suitable to display on your mantle piece, or if you're not comfortable showing it to grandma, then quite possibly the photograph shouldn't have been taken in the first place.

Oddly, a number of people here have jumped on the pro pornography wagon, but isn't this really more about protecting children and their innocence rather than protecting adults' rights to view porn?

[QUOTE=Mr.FixIt;660833] unless you are a pedophile, and even then, is the child in question harmed because some sick pedophile likes the photo? I say, not unless the sick fucker stalks the child. QUOTE]
not neccasarily that particular child, but when said paedophile gets aroused viewing such 'art' (as Alex said earlier,when we look at something that turns us on we want to and often do act on it) and if there's some child 'handy' at the time...what then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icey

not neccasarily that particular child, but when said paedophile gets aroused viewing such 'art' (as Alex said earlier,when we look at something that turns us on we want to and often do act on it) and if there's some child 'handy' at the time...what then?

---

Then you run into the same problem we will always have, whether its pictures of children or of paid adult women in bondage/torture images. If the person viewing those bondage/torture images becomes aroused to the point of committing a crime, who's responsible, the images or the aroused nut who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality?

ANY image, of any kind, can be construed as arousing to SOMEONE! Any story, especially on this site, could be considered inflammatory to some sicko. Should we shut down the internet? Close the libraries? Burn all the books and photographs, just to try to keep one sicko from going out of control? We might as well just lock ourselves up and throw away the keys.

Not the way I choose to live, thank you.

Quote:

---

Alex: ... but isn't this really more about protecting children and their innocence rather than protecting adults' rights to view porn?

---

Yes. It is about protecting children's innocence. But it isn't about imagining threats to their innocence that don't exist. Or, rather, it isn't about talking up remote threats to their innocence so that the parents, society, and the poor children themselves, imagine there's a man out to get them, and he's probably one of those men walking downt he street right now.

Protecting their innocence means keeping them unaware of the nasty side of life for as long as possible. Why, I've just been reading a book set in the late 1800's where it was considered indelicate for a doctor to mention syphilis within the hearing of a 17 year old.

Quote:

---

icey:- ... but when said paedophile gets aroused viewing such 'art' (as Alex said earlier,when we look at something that turns us on we want to and often do act on it) and if there's some child 'handy' at the time...what then?

---

He's much more likely - much more likely to gratify himself using the pictures. Much easier and more immediate than finding a "handy" child, supposing there is one, gaining its trust, persuading it or forcing it to submit, and then taking steps to ensure he is not discovered ... whatever those might be.

I'm not saying bad things never happen, I'm saying they only rarely happen, and when they do, the paedophiles have usually planned their assaults carefully and meticulously over time.

I don't think pictures of naked children are any more likely to cause attacks on children than cars on the road are likely to kill them. I think it is far less likely.


I cannot accept that it is right for many people (hundreds, thousands or millions, dependng on the exposure) to be denied the pleasure of what might be a sublimely beautiful study of an innocent child because it is possible - remotely possible, but that possibility is real - that someone somewhere in the world might get aroused by that picture and at the same moment find a child he can impose himself upon ... AND BECAUSE OF THAT POSSIBILITY, ALL pictures of naked children are to be prohibited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Then you run into the same problem we will always have, whether its pictures of children or of paid adult women in bondage/torture images. If the person viewing those bondage/torture images becomes aroused to the point of committing a crime, who's responsible, the images or the aroused nut who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality?

ANY image, of any kind, can be construed as arousing to SOMEONE! Any story, especially on this site, could be considered inflammatory to some sicko. Should we shut down the internet? Close the libraries? Burn all the books and photographs, just to try to keep one sicko from going out of control? We might as well just lock ourselves up and throw away the keys.

Not the way I choose to live, thank you.

---

Yes, I agree completely. You're right, Thorne--absolutely 100% right. Why, even something as innocent as an advertisement for baby power could be misconstrued as sexual to some people. This issue, however, is more simply about a twelve year old girl who many feel has been sexually exploited in the name of art.

Putting aside the selfish wants and needs of adults who may enjoy viewing these photographs--for the sake of art or otherwise--and forgetting about what we, as adults, feel we are entitled to view or read in the form of pornography, will the girl herself at some time feel she has is she's been exploited? Having carefully read the responses here and given this a whole lot of thought, I think perhaps that's what's most important. Will she in years to come, as an adult, regret these photos? And, more specifically, regret having had these photos of her young body displayed so publically?

More importantly, and certainly more pertinent to this thread than whether or not we're all getting the full range of porn we feel we're entitled to, is the question of whether a twelve year old is old enough to make these kinds of decisions about her how body? A minor can't get a tattoo; work as topless bar maid, or pose for lad mags --actually there's a hell of a lot of things you can't do before you turn eighteen--and there's a damned good reason for that. So, is this really so different?

Oh, before anyone goes looking for said photos on the net, take heed of WW1warning because you certainly don't want "naked twelve year old girl" on your computer's Google history--and there's a damned good reason for that too, isn't there?

And, finally, while this is a good and interesting debate (thank you all), and I hope I haven't offended anyone here (so sorry if I have), this is an emotive topic for me, so I'm going to call it quits, and bow out of it. *ss*

i dunno. MMI and Master are not disagreeing here. my head is spinning.

i would not allow my 12 year old girl or boy to be photographed in this manner...to go in and pose naked for photos. When we were in Germany, many little girls ran around naked at the pool, until they got a bit closer to puberty, and then they were told to wear more. i see this as nature, beautiful babies...no big deal, they should be able to be free sometime before real life starts kicking them.

The way children are allowed to dress these days is similar to the "artwork" mentioned here. Go to your local airport and watch vacationers board the planes. Watch the dads and moms who are allowing their daughters to wear clothing that is inappropriate...who needs kiddy porn when you have the real thing at the airport? Skirts so high that you can see their butts and tops so low you wonder if something's gonna peek out. Sure, we should all be able to dress as we like, but wow.

It's one thing to do candids of naked children playing, or bathing...it's a whole different issue when they are brought into a studio and told to get naked and pose....bathtub or not.

Candids are life happening...MMI's sister, for example. People at a party not expecting you to take the shot. There is no planning or posing. To me, that is artistic. Posing for a photo is modeling. So now we have a 12 year old nude model. She can't sign the contract on her own...because she's not mature enough in the eyes of the law, or in my eyes, either.

My father took pix of me in a bikini when i was about 6 years old. He had me posed on our coffee table, all sexy lookin, lounging like i was on the beach. i was never abused by my father, y'all...but Master didn't know what to say when he saw this pic. Master thought it was questionable...i'm a child of the 70s too. My family never made a big deal of nudity. Not that dad ran aound the house naked...but when we saw it on tv or a movie, it was just part of the show, nothing more. The pix that my dad took were of his precious little angel, and i'm sure he never intended them to be some sort of porn or even thought that they would be considered questionable.

i can tell you this: As the subject of such art, i can say that i would not be happy to hear that some sicko yanked his wank using these pix. And i'm not naked in them!! This girl is not mature enough to make up her own mind about this, period. How is she gonna feel about this later on in life? i know that i feel uncomfortable when someone sees those pix now.

At the age of 18 here in the US, you can vote, smoke and legally have sex. You can't enter into a contract at the age of 12. You have to wait till you're 18. This is for a reason...now this little 12 year old girl gets to live with the stigma of being "that poor little girl...." i really don't think it's right.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to discuss it, Alex

As MMI said, thanks Alex! Good topic! LOL and i'm glad you were faster about bowing out than i was in my last debate (sorry y'all, i'll work on that emotional girly stuff).