Art or thinly veiled kiddy porn?

[Thorne]

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.

[MMI]

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.

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.

[Alex Bragi]

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*

[stripedangel]

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.

[MMI]

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to discuss it, Alex

[stripedangel]

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).