This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Art or pr0n?

Jump to new
I think it is another case of political correctness gone mad.

How many of you have seen pictures of workmates children on their desks? One of my bosses had a very cute picture of his daughter in a flower pot with a gumnut hat on her head but no top on. Is this considered pornographic or just representative of the sort of pictures parents have of their children? Should I have called the police?

There is a park near my house where children play softball. I wanted to go there and practice some action photography but decided better of it for fear of being reported as a pedophile.

cheers
Surly
 
MattB said:
i
where does it end? when can we just accept things for what they are and not always collapse into this nanny state "its the worst case" train of thought?
Click to expand...

This is my feeling also. I don't see anything sexual in the photograph but at the same time it's rather unnatural looking, very 'posed' which seems a shame with a child of that age.

It seems the editors of the magazine have done it as a protest against the whole censorship of art question which has arisen from the Bill Henson photographs. I can understand that. Next we will be removing the paintings of the Old Masters from art galleries throughout the world because they depict naked people, both adults and children.

This hysteria over imagined sexuality in innocent pictures of children is way out of control. If we are going to run our society on the basis that some perverted, aberrant paedophiles are going to manage to find some prurient pleasure in seeing these photographs, then heaven help us.
 
I don't really care either way, I wouldn't really call it porno, but then again, nekidd kiddies isn't what I look for when choosing my, err, "adult" entertainment.

I did have a good chuckle at the mag doing it for what can only be described as a publicity stunt, and to try and piss off the PC crowd. "won't someone please think of the children!"

What I would find even funnier is if the stunt backfires, the mag loses it's govt funding and has to shut down
 
Article in the SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/im-offended-by-rudd-says-girl/2008/07/07/1215282747275.html

From the article:
"it was the context in which the photographs were published alongside other more disturbing sexual images in the magazine that needed to be taken into account, said the director of Women's Forum Australia, Melinda Tankard Reist.

"The little girl is in there along with bondage images, including one of a Japanese schoolgirl in school uniform trussed up in rope while another image shows an adult woman also trussed up, with breasts and genitals exposed."

Ms Tankard Reist said it was hard to talk about art restoring dignity when another image in the magazine showed a woman being fellated by an octopus."

Charming content to include with a photo of six-year old girl.
 
Everyone should realise that our natural state is naked and that people in many so called primitive societies live their whole lives naked or nearly so - at least in the warmer parts of the world.

We in the Western world are descended from people who moved into colder areas and clothing was necessary for survival through the winters. It's now so 'normal' for us to wear clothes that we can be fined for NOT wearing them in public places.

Someone commented that the young girl was brainwashed by her parents. Well, we're ALL brainwashed to some extent by the culture we're brought up in. How many of you reading this were taught (and are teaching your own kids) get a good education, get a good job, buy a house in a nice suburb, have 1.68 kids, etc, etc?

So, in answer to the question posed by this thread, I would say it's neither art nor pr0n, it's just natural!
 
bassmanpete said:
...and that people in many so called primitive societies live their whole lives naked or nearly so - at least in the warmer parts of the world.
Click to expand...

bassman

So is this natural mate
take the way we look after the planet for example
(by which I mean that GW is more serious than this thread btw)

PS that's a good point about kids in poor countries , who run around nude or near nude -

Trouble is they are the same poor countries where our Aussie paedophiles go for holidays

On first thoughts, I'm for a bit of "self-imposed restraint" - which of course is an invitation to an artist to flaunt nude photos all over the place lol. - Maybe I'll just watch this one develop and die a natural death - from the sidelines
 

Attachments

  • man and god.jpg
    9.3 KB · Views: 226
I have one opinion.

UNNECESSARY
 
take the way we look after the planet for example
Click to expand...

I know, but don't get me started on that

PS that's a good point about kids in poor countries , who run around nude or near nude -

Trouble is they are the same poor countries where our Aussie paedophiles go for holidays
Click to expand...

Isn't the head of the world's biggest paedophile ring coming to Sydney next week? And we're not even allowed to protest!
 
I think the photograph is lovely and nothing wrong with it whatsoever. It is fine art and it is no use telling anyone it is if they know nothing about art. It is not pornography and has no resemblance to it. Nudity is not pornography and I don't believe anyone really thinks that or everyone would be guilty of it at some stage. Anyway what is wrong with pornography when I come to think of it. There is all kinds of pornography and it is legal and so what is the fuss about. Besides the fact that these artists are not making pornography, they are not images of any kind of sexual activity whatsoever, just naturalistically unclothed in a very beautiful natural setting as if on a private holiday with family.

It is this panic about paedophiles seeing the pictures supposedly. Its incredible how so many people seem to be an expert on what paedophiles want. Where do people get these ideas from? How do they know so much about paedophiles and if they don't know that much then what are they doing pretending they do? If there is a panic about where this picture is going to show up, then who is guilty in that case? the media are showing it everywhere and publishing articles and comments to sell their newspapers, then accusing the artists of exploiting the child. How hypocritical and corrupt is that? Then everyone is copying it including people on this site and making unsavoury comments. That is abusing the art and ignoring how the girl feels about her image being treated like an evil being that is being debated over without considering her feelings at all, and saying she is too dumb to understand. Now I think that this common response is child abuse, insensitive and unnecessary.

If a paedophilically inclined person wants to go into an art gallery and enjoy paintings of nude cherubs etc they can do so and they can be art enthusiasts as well as anyone else. They are not abusing anyone by doing looking at art and the paintings/photographs look at do not become pornographic because they see them. It is an absurd notion. There are men who go and see the nude Chloe painting at the pub in Melbourne city and I think she was a teenager at the time of the artwork. Now where is the abuse in that? Is or was Chloe being abused? No one has ever said anything about that and it is a ridiculous notion. Her painting is not causing men to go out and criminally assault women. It is not pornography just because it is a picture of an unclothed body. My goodness what a culture we have become, I cannot believe what people are saying.
 
I don't see the picture as pornographic, but nor do I see the girl as art. I believe he probably did it for shock value, and guess what, he got it.

Brett
 
Vida, thanks for such common sense and perspective.
 
Art.

The pictures that paedophiles look at is photographic abuse. I hardly think I need to elaborate on what they might include.

This is art. You don't have to like it, but there is nothing malicious in it.

Chill.....
.
 
Snakey said:
does this mean that all naked pictures or paintings of naked adults is pr0n???
.
Click to expand...

we don't let kids drink alcohol till they are 18,.... so why let them pose naked.

I am a pretty liberal person but adult poses for kids are just not right,..
 

Finally some intelligence on this forum
well done bassman ten points to you
you've got my respect
 
There is nothing exclusively adult about nudity. Everyone has skin, we are not born in our clothes, its what they call a "birthday suit". The girl in the photo is in her birthday suit and it has no comparison to alcohol which is addictive, unhealthy and its a drug which has nothing to do with being clothed or not and has nothing to do with photography or art, although artists may indulge. They are not 'adult' poses in those pics in question. Far from it. I don't know what you are imagining, I think your mind is twisting things into whatever you fancy which has nothing to do with the photo content and if that is the case that is your problem. I think people who see this as pr0n need to see a shrink.

Anyway its not true that kids don't drink alcohol until they are 18. That is simply the age when they can legally buy alcohol and go to bars etc. Otherwise there is nothing stopping younger people from drinking alcohol at home or privately elsewhere, in fact it happens all the time. A lot of parents, especially europeans, bring up their kids allowing them a glass of wine with dinner. Its a way to learn moderation and appreciation as well, rather than abstinence then at 18 BINGE

Tysonboss1 said:
we don't let kids drink alcohol till they are 18,.... so why let them pose naked.

I am a pretty liberal person but adult poses for kids are just not right,..
Click to expand...
 
The classification board has not banned the magazine from sale. It is free to air as it should be according to the news today. Now what next? The aggressive art prudes will find something else to scream "ban ban" soon. The PM's taste is well known now to be for Victorian fully garbed head to toe. He probably should be a muslim and put his wife and daughter in a burka, maybe he did in a past life who knows! I think really he was just bending knee to public opinion ensuring that no one suspected him of being a paedophile. hmm
 
So, on tonight's news, we have a 10yr old girl parading with female adults in a body building competition. Looked great all oiled up & in tiny bikini's (only joking)
Explotation or OK?
Form of Art?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...