- This topic is empty.
art, nudity and child exploitation in one hot topic!
-
Kefln, i see the point you’re making there. but that might be another thread altogether as well. is it still art if it appeals to plebs? (i’m not calling anyone names either)
From what I’ve read the paedopervs don’t necessarily get all their kicks from naked photos of kids.
The whole innocence thing is a big part of what they’re into, so pics of fully dressed kids can be just as stimulating to them – their fantasies fill in the blanks. Anyone who’s deluding themselves that posting pics of fully clothed kids is some sort of turn off to paedopervs needs to get rid of that assumption because it’s just far too naive. I don’t have an issue with publishing fun photos of my kid or others publishing photos of theirs – I rate kid photos alongside sunsets or plants, hugely popular but awfully cliched and mostly dull. I hate the idea that some paedoperv might be getting his/her jollies from a photo of my kid, but I’m sure if they hang out on Flickr they also hang out at shopping centres too and it’s up to me to make decisions I can live with.I’m not sold on the whole societal fear thing either, the way the news media like nothing more than a good scare story to send us to bed each night. Sure there’s things to be wary of, there always has been, but it’s got to the point where taking photos in public areas is frowned on while at the same time there’s more CCTV cameras popping up all over the place. The promotion of fear – whether it be of pervs or terrorists or yoofs – just paves the way for the insidious introduction of yet more laws that can be corrupted to reduce privacy and individuality. These laws can be sold to the public as a ‘good thing’ simply by pointing the finger at a bad guy and backing it up with sensationalist headlines and snappy sound-bites. Just look at what 9/11 did in the States: Homeland Security laws that any police state would welcome and a booming industry in security, not exactly tackiling the problems at source so much as learning how to profit from them. If you start introducing laws as extreme measures to solve problems then someone else is going to want to introduce similar extreme laws to solve their particular issue, and there’s no guarantee any of them will work or succeed in doing anything other than undermining the civil liberties of the much larger majority.
I just don’t understand why the laws we have already aren’t good enough.
Why a murderer can get out of prison in 7 years, why a rapist can serve only 18 months, why a paedoperv can get a suspended sentence.
It’s near enough to giving someone an incentive to murder/ra pe/pillage as makes no difference.
Long ‘must serve full time’ sentences with hard labour and no remission for violent crimes.
Sentences should punish, severely, not be a revolving door to a social network of like minded crims.
Your time is up.
Please deposit another 2c.summerdreamn wrote:
Kefln, i see the point you’re making there. but that might be another thread altogether as well. is it still art if it appeals to plebs? (i’m not calling anyone names either)
The point I’m making is that there is a huge paranoia on this subject at the moment. Some of it is justified some of it isn’t. The problem is that anyone brave enough to stand in the public eye and say that its “art” will be labelled a pervert before the words are fully out of their mouths.
I have a 7-year-old son, he swims every Friday and I can’t take photos of it just in case I include other kids in the shot. Yet if he were playing football no one would have an issue with it. The difference isn’t in my intentions but the very fact that the kids aren’t fully clothed in the pool. Now I’m happy with the no cameras at the pool rule, simply because I don’t know the intent of the other spectators. Hence the paranoia.
Lets face it we, more than most, know the power of the internet and the digital camera. You can take a shot, load it and that image is available world wide in seconds.
Its an imperative that we look after our children, but at what cost?
As for Anne Geddes. Whether you agree with her artistic merit or her choice of subject, it doesn’t matter, her work is recognised internationally. Essentially she takes pictures of naked kids and sells them. Yet because of the “cuteness” factor it acceptable. But posing a child in a more “adult” pose isn’t. Had the girl in the OP been lying face down, chin cupped in her hands, B&W, some creative blurring, this wouldn’t be a conversation. It wouldn’t matter if she were naked because the focus would be on her face, her eyes, not her body. And that seems to be the line.
IMHO if I hear someone ranting about children in photographs I always think about Geddes. If people want to ban one sort of child “art”, should there ban a total ban?
Mick451 wrote:
I’m not sold on the whole societal fear thing either, the way the news media like nothing more than a good scare story to send us to bed each night.
I agree completely. The media make a habit of blowing things out of proportion.
Role playing games turn kids into Satanists, computer games lead to kids shooting kids, crime shows give criminals ideas, motor sports lead to joy riding.
There are important social problems being openly discussed, but pigeon holing them is just as bad as not talking about them.Mick451 wrote:
From what I’ve read the paedopervs don’t necessarily get all their kicks from naked photos of kids.
Again I agree. Like any sort of porn, and I use that term lightly, people get their kicks out of different things. This is a family board so we can’t exactly go into details, but logically thinking, if men get their jollies looking at feet, you can assume that some get their jollies looking at children’s feet. Does that mean we should ban sandals? Or adds for shoes?
Mick451 wrote:
I just don’t understand why the laws we have already aren’t good enough.
Why a murderer can get out of prison in 7 years, why a rapist can serve only 18 months, why a paedoperv can get a suspended sentence.
It’s near enough to giving someone an incentive to murder/ra pe/pillage as makes no difference.
Long ‘must serve full time’ sentences with hard labour and no remission for violent crimes.
Sentences should punish, severely, not be a revolving door to a social network of like minded crims.Exactly.
And now I feel like a bath…some subjects just give you the shivers…
Folks, in addition to my views expressed early in this thread, I have one other point to make,
The subject picture shows a young girl in a pose that is very akin to the page 3 type (sexy) pose we see in the
media every day.For an adult to pose like this is fine, as in it is an adult’s choice.
But in this case, the child has no choice, and in todays world, these types of shots CAN be used by the not so normal, for their own ends.
Naivety in what is publicly displayed is dangerous, and is just what the pervs trade on!
Lets picture the children posing as children and leave the adults poses to the adults – art or no art!
8)
but Ken, as had been said in a few posts now, these people don’t need sexual poses to get off, they can get off on any snapshot of a child…so are we to stop taking photographs of children altogether?
If you take a picture of you child, before you put it in a public place ask yourself
whether you’d be comfortable with a paedoperv (nice coinage there) printing off a copy.Then remember that your ‘comfortable’ might be another parent’s ‘edgy’.
Jody wrote:
but Ken, as had been said in a few posts now, these people don’t need sexual poses to get off, they can get off on any snapshot of a child…so are we to stop taking photographs of children altogether?
Hi Jody,
my post was clear on the shots that should not be used – those that show childern emulating adult sexual poses…
nowhere did I even suggest that we should not show photographs of children – what a ludicrous thought! :lol:
if the pervs are desperate enough to use normal shots of childern as turn-ons then there is nothing we can do about it –
but let’s not make it easy for them!Pete makes a good point about using our own personal judgement knowing the type of pervs that are out there!
8)
kenh wrote:
Pete makes a good point about using our own personal judgement knowing the type of pervs that are out there!
Thanks Ken. I think half the problem is that people just don’t know the type of pervs
that are out there. For ordinary folks, it’s very hard to imagine what it is all about.
Something in our minds shudders with revulsion and shuts out normal rational thought.Just a wee thought about the modern, ubiquitous suspicions that gnaw away at us….
If my mate says, “Hey Pete, your wife’s a nice lady”. I glow with pride.
If he says, “Maria the Bloke is growing into a nice young lady”, I wonder if I should whack him.Then remember that your ‘comfortable’ might be another parent’s ‘edgy’.
Of course, isn’t that what this debate is about?
Some people don’t have an issue with those sorts of images, and banning them isn’t going to make the paedopervs go away.
Some people do have a problem with those images, because they think it makes it easy for the paedopervs to get their kicks.So it’s more a question of where does society draw the line and who decides what’s good and bad for us all.
Do you want some unknown suit in a dark room deciding what’s good for everyone (the geniuses that banned The Life of Brian)?
Or do you think it’s up to the individual to be free to make their own personal choices and that the government to take responsibility for making sure that the bad people are caught and punished severely for breaking the law?but let’s not make it easy for them!
Oh yeah, banning something really works – abortion, drugs, drink driving, carrying weapons, porn, yadda yadda yadda.
All banning things does is drive stuff underground and make others feel good about brushing stuff under the carpet.
I’m not convinced.kenh wrote:
Folks, in addition to my views expressed early in this thread, I have one other point to make,
The subject picture shows a young girl in a pose that is very akin to the page 3 type (sexy) pose we see in the
media every day.For an adult to pose like this is fine, as in it is an adult’s choice.
But in this case, the child has no choice, and in todays world, these types of shots CAN be used by the not so normal, for their own ends.
Naivety in what is publicly displayed is dangerous, and is just what the pervs trade on!
Lets picture the children posing as children and leave the adults poses to the adults – art or no art!
8)
That is exactly what I said in my post
kefln wrote:
As for Anne Geddes. Whether you agree with her artistic merit or her choice of subject, it doesn’t matter, her work is recognised internationally. Essentially she takes pictures of naked kids and sells them. Yet because of the “cuteness” factor it acceptable. But posing a child in a more “adult” pose isn’t. Had the girl in the OP been lying face down, chin cupped in her hands, B&W, some creative blurring, this wouldn’t be a conversation. It wouldn’t matter if she were naked because the focus would be on her face, her eyes, not her body. And that seems to be the line.
The OP has a child in a pose that is considered to be more “adult”, it is designed to draw attention to the form of the model.
If kids are to be used as art, especially when they are naked, consideration should be given to how the picture looks as a whole. By that I mean what the focus of the image is. A child’s eyes can be fantastic, innocent but playful. For example a picture I took of my son last year where he looks a little brazen:[img]
But if the focus is on the child’s legs or torso, then a line has been crossed, least in my opinion.
Course that always brings me back to Geddes…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
