jenfly00 0 #76 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteMy porn collection is also fairly impressive....... I sincerely don't intend this as a personal slap, but I'm wondering if there is any connection between amassing a "fairly impressive" porn collection and sexualizing the photos in question. just didnt want you to get the wrong impression after you said i was preaching morals.... My question is more centered around whether someone who collects porn has a distorted view of nudity, of women and of sex.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #77 July 16, 2008 >But the arguments your making are the same a pedophile would make >if he was caught with pictures.... Right. But you should not restrict art based on what some twisted folks find sexually desireable. (You might end up outlawing chicks with guns if that came to pass!) The standard should always be harm (both actual and potential) to the children involved. True for adults as well, but the standards should be much higher for children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #78 July 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I dont draw the line, that's what the judicial system is for. So you allow your government to draw the line for you and then accept without question the line ... no if I question my government i do it at the polls. So if murder becomes legal you won't question your government until you are at the polls ... Quote as to your previous post. acceptable societal standards are set by the people, and reviewed and reassessed over time. what i find offensive is apparently different to what you find offensive. I don't know what you find offensive because you won't state what you find offensive if it differs from what your government finds offensive. (Not to mention, I didn't state whether I find this offensive.) Quote Given that here in Australia the pictures in question are not considered pornography, (in a court of law) and actually some of which appear in our National Gallery, I will take it as read that at least our society in general accepts the pictures as art. I didn't question whether the pictures are "art" I questioned whether the "art" is justified given the content and potential harm."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #79 July 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote So you allow your government to draw the line for you and then accept without question the line ... no if I question my government i do it at the polls. So if murder becomes legal you won't question your government until you are at the polls ... I'm not even going to bother with that, it's moronic Quote I didn't question whether the pictures are "art" I questioned whether the "art" is justified given the content and potential harm. What potential harm is there, (the link that you posted previous was deliberately ignored, due to it being a stinking pile of irrelevant shite).You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poe62 0 #80 July 16, 2008 I, too, have a BFA in art, and I truly appreciate your perspective as I've been there with nude models. Your exploration into the ideas behind the work are great! There are too many people who do not understand where art comes from in many cases. It's refreshing to read your thoughts. The vulnerability of the model is definitely stripped and pure...and awkward as you said. My only reservation about such a subject would be that it's not MY place to capture it through any type of media. It's not the AGE of the model that makes me say that though. It's that it's such a personal and private experience that I don't think an outsider would appreciate it like the actual subject does in that given moment. I still think it's worthy of exhibition if someone else has the courage to create with permission such work. ...It's definitely NOT sexual to me in any way, shape, or form. I see no problem with that issue.~Nikki http://www.facebook.com/poe62 Irgity Dirgity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #81 July 16, 2008 QuoteWould people feel differently about the artwork if the artist was a female? In regards to the few pictures I have a problem with, and whether I would let a teenage daughter (if I had one) model for them, no, it wouldn't make any difference if the artist was a female. QuoteYet, as a female who remembers being that age, I did not think of my body as sexual at that age. I was fully aware of my sexuality at that age. And I was fully aware of the other people (especially adult men) who were also aware of my sexuality at that age. Perhaps that would explain some of the difference of opinion. But I also think that you may not have seen the same photos that I found questionable (which I'm not going to link on here, because I don't think sangiro would appreciate it). I didn't see any of the "questionable" photos pop up in the google image search that was provided on this thread. They were in a collection of his photos that I had looked at before. And I don't know if they are the ones that caused the controversy in the OP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #82 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteI didn't question whether the pictures are "art" I questioned whether the "art" is justified given the content and potential harm. What potential harm is there, (the link that you posted previous was deliberately ignored, due to it being a stinking pile of irrelevant shite). Most (if not all) of the potential harm has already been stated. How is a link to a pedophile who targets fourteen year old girls irrelevant given the content of the "art" is nude twelve to fourteen year old girls (with some being in questionable poses)?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #83 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI How is a link to a pedophile who targets fourteen year old girls irrelevant given the content of the "art" is nude twelve to fourteen year old girls (with some being in questionable poses)? How is an internet predator related to photographic art? Linking the 2 is asinine as such irrelevant. Given that sort of thinking beaches and swimming pools need to be closed for good.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,123 #84 July 16, 2008 What I think is most telling in this debate or argument or whatever we want to call it, is that it appears that the nudity is the only problem. I don't see any comments from the posters here on the Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair cover shot, which is quite suggestive, specially with a 15 year old teen star as the subject. With that situation I have some serious doubts about any artistic thought or intent. The intent, to me, seems to be much more along the lines of "sex sells" in that case. So, on one side we have a serious artist, but some pictures in his collection display teen nudity. On the other side we have a teen star posing suggestively on the cover of a widely read magazine. I know which side my ire is most likely to go to..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #85 July 16, 2008 Quote>But the arguments your making are the same a pedophile would make >if he was caught with pictures.... Right. But you should not restrict art based on what some twisted folks find sexually desireable. (You might end up outlawing chicks with guns if that came to pass!) The standard should always be harm (both actual and potential) to the children involved. True for adults as well, but the standards should be much higher for children. I once had a friend call me in tears because she was very upset over a video that she had found on her boyfriend's computer. She said it showed a baby, and an adult male was sticking the tip of his penis in the baby's mouth. The baby was giggling and apparently thinking the whole thing was funny. From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. But for some reason, I still found it to be disturbing. Perhaps I just didn't understand the "art"? Hey, for all I know, the adult male was the baby's father, and he thought it would be a funny video to make to show the kid in the future. Who am I to judge what other people want to do with their kids? And according to some on here, I guess that video was not sexually suggestive unless the viewer found it to be sexually suggestive? So if there is a problem, it would only be with the viewer and not with the actual content? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #86 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuote> I once had a friend call me in tears because she was very upset over a video that she had found on her boyfriend's computer. She said it showed a baby, and an adult male was sticking the tip of his penis in the baby's mouth. The baby was giggling and apparently thinking the whole thing was funny. From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. But for some reason, I still found it to be disturbing. Perhaps I just didn't understand the "art"? Hey, for all I know, the adult male was the baby's father, and he thought it would be a funny video to make to show the kid in the future. Who am I to judge what other people want to do with their kids? And according to some on here, I guess that video was not sexually suggestive unless the viewer found it to be sexually suggestive? So if there is a problem, it would only be with the viewer and not with the actual content? {{{Heavy sigh...}}} I have actually been waiting for this sort of thing to come up, unfortunately i knew it would. What you are describing is the video capture of an ILLEGAL ACT perpetrated on a child. it has NOTHING to do with the pictures in question.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #87 July 16, 2008 >From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #88 July 16, 2008 Quote>From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Yep. Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #89 July 16, 2008 QuoteWhat you are describing is the video capture of an ILLEGAL ACT perpetrated on a child. it has NOTHING to do with the pictures in question. My opinion of right or wrong is not based on what is legal or illegal. But actually, legality does have something to do with the pictures in question. Otherwise, they never would have been in the courts in the first place. They are obviously borderline enough that some people feel they should be illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #90 July 16, 2008 Quote I once had a friend call me in tears because she was very upset over a video that she had found on her boyfriend's computer. She said it showed a baby, and an adult male was sticking the tip of his penis in the baby's mouth. The baby was giggling and apparently thinking the whole thing was funny. From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. But for some reason, I still found it to be disturbing. Perhaps I just didn't understand the "art"? Hey, for all I know, the adult male was the baby's father, and he thought it would be a funny video to make to show the kid in the future. Who am I to judge what other people want to do with their kids? And according to some on here, I guess that video was not sexually suggestive unless the viewer found it to be sexually suggestive? [/B] Exactly what the hell are you saying? This is wrong and a non-rational argument. That act is most certainly harmful behavior and definitely sexual abuse. I don't care how you look at it. When a person (adult or another child) places their private parts into or near a child or touches another child's private parts, it is most certainly not OK. This is sexual abuse. That has nothing to do with nude paintings, drawing, photographs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #91 July 16, 2008 >Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl >pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. If there was a penis touching her, I'd agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #92 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuote>From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Yep. Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. What??? What specific photograph are you referring to, Keely? I never saw anything like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #93 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuote They are obviously borderline enough that some people feel they should be illegal. I have BOLDED the operative words , SOME PEOPLE will find an argument ANYWHEREYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #94 July 16, 2008 I was being sarcastic, Rosa. Of course I think that that sort of video is wrong. My point was that "wrong" is subjective. The video I mentioned is one where most of us will agree that it is wrong (though probably not all of us). The pictures in question here are not as clear. Some are sure that they are wrong, and others are sure that they are not. There is no definitive answer to the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Conundrum 1 #95 July 16, 2008 You were comparing apples to oranges. An actual sexual act being performed on a child, vs. a photo or painting of a nude child. It's on a totally different level entirely. Even if the painting was "suggstive". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #96 July 16, 2008 QuoteWhat??? What specific photograph are you referring to, Keely? I never saw anything like that. There are several pictures of his that I found to be not so tasteful, considering that the models are underage. I will not post a link to them on here because I think it would be in violation of the forum rules. And I don't really want to search for them again anyway because I don't care to look at that sort of stuff (or have it linked to my computer). As I said before, most of his pictures are fine. In fact, I think he's a great photographer. But I have seen a select few of his photos that I find questionable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #97 July 16, 2008 QuoteI was being sarcastic, Rosa. Of course I think that that sort of video is wrong. I know that you were being sarcastic. I think the argument that you gave is not valid. It's comparing apples and oranges. These girls were not being touched, and I never saw any sexually suggestive photographs either. Showing nudity is not the same thing as showing sexuality. Am I missing something, or have I not seen all of the pictures. What I have seen is not sexual, and I am quite private and modest as a person. Like I said, we don't know the artist's intention for the exhibit. It may even be to make a point about what we are arguing about. I don't think that I can talk about someone else's vision without hearing his or her explanation for doing what he or she did. It may be to make a point in the opposite direction of what some people are assuming. It would be different if it was truly sexual. I would find that most definitely wrong. I am a modest person myself, but I don't think that being nude qualifies as being sexy or sexual or sensual or anything. It's just being nude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #98 July 16, 2008 QuoteThe USofA has very prudish standards by Australian, and European standards. Do you mean judicially? I would beg to differ. Under Miller v. California (the seminal case - no pun intended) there are three requirements to ban material as "obscene:" 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards (this part I don't like because it encourages forum shopping) must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2)) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Now, it allowed many prosecutions because of it. But then they looked at child porn in New York v. Ferber (1982) and found unanimously that child porn was not prtected speech. The court found (reasonably, even in my libertarian leanings), the the government has a strong interest in banning child pornography. Child porn is inherently related to child abuse and/or exploitation, and to allow this stuff to be distributed would serve as a permanent reminder to future adults of what happened to them as kids. Furthermore, allowing it provides an economic incentive to make more child porn. And - here's the part the court found - child porn has little artistic value. Now - the photo in this exhibition is arguable as to whether it appeals to the prurient interest. That's why pictures of naked babies in bathtubs are not the type of things that can be banned. It's not that obscenity prosecutions don't occur. They do. A month ago, there was a mistrial declared in Los Angeles in the trial of Ira Isaacs, who was on trial for selling bestiality and scat films. Reason? Justice Kozinsky had a personal website with porn images and he caught serious heat. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #99 July 16, 2008 Quote>Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl >pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. If there was a penis touching her, I'd agree. Ah, so only penises can harm children? I see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #100 July 16, 2008 Ok, Keely. I'm not going to ask for more the information, since I understand how you feel about this. It seems to be something that you feel strongly about, and I respect that. I also feel the same about child abuse/child sexual abuse. I am very strongly against anyone who would harm a baby, child or teenager in any way. Trust me, I think there is no greater monstrosity in this world. Personally, I may have never seen the photographs that you did. I only did a google search using the artist's name to see some of his work. I am going based on what I've seen. I cannot comment on what you're referring to in your posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
SkyDekker 1,123 #84 July 16, 2008 What I think is most telling in this debate or argument or whatever we want to call it, is that it appears that the nudity is the only problem. I don't see any comments from the posters here on the Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair cover shot, which is quite suggestive, specially with a 15 year old teen star as the subject. With that situation I have some serious doubts about any artistic thought or intent. The intent, to me, seems to be much more along the lines of "sex sells" in that case. So, on one side we have a serious artist, but some pictures in his collection display teen nudity. On the other side we have a teen star posing suggestively on the cover of a widely read magazine. I know which side my ire is most likely to go to..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #85 July 16, 2008 Quote>But the arguments your making are the same a pedophile would make >if he was caught with pictures.... Right. But you should not restrict art based on what some twisted folks find sexually desireable. (You might end up outlawing chicks with guns if that came to pass!) The standard should always be harm (both actual and potential) to the children involved. True for adults as well, but the standards should be much higher for children. I once had a friend call me in tears because she was very upset over a video that she had found on her boyfriend's computer. She said it showed a baby, and an adult male was sticking the tip of his penis in the baby's mouth. The baby was giggling and apparently thinking the whole thing was funny. From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. But for some reason, I still found it to be disturbing. Perhaps I just didn't understand the "art"? Hey, for all I know, the adult male was the baby's father, and he thought it would be a funny video to make to show the kid in the future. Who am I to judge what other people want to do with their kids? And according to some on here, I guess that video was not sexually suggestive unless the viewer found it to be sexually suggestive? So if there is a problem, it would only be with the viewer and not with the actual content? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #86 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuote> I once had a friend call me in tears because she was very upset over a video that she had found on her boyfriend's computer. She said it showed a baby, and an adult male was sticking the tip of his penis in the baby's mouth. The baby was giggling and apparently thinking the whole thing was funny. From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. But for some reason, I still found it to be disturbing. Perhaps I just didn't understand the "art"? Hey, for all I know, the adult male was the baby's father, and he thought it would be a funny video to make to show the kid in the future. Who am I to judge what other people want to do with their kids? And according to some on here, I guess that video was not sexually suggestive unless the viewer found it to be sexually suggestive? So if there is a problem, it would only be with the viewer and not with the actual content? {{{Heavy sigh...}}} I have actually been waiting for this sort of thing to come up, unfortunately i knew it would. What you are describing is the video capture of an ILLEGAL ACT perpetrated on a child. it has NOTHING to do with the pictures in question.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #87 July 16, 2008 >From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #88 July 16, 2008 Quote>From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Yep. Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #89 July 16, 2008 QuoteWhat you are describing is the video capture of an ILLEGAL ACT perpetrated on a child. it has NOTHING to do with the pictures in question. My opinion of right or wrong is not based on what is legal or illegal. But actually, legality does have something to do with the pictures in question. Otherwise, they never would have been in the courts in the first place. They are obviously borderline enough that some people feel they should be illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #90 July 16, 2008 Quote I once had a friend call me in tears because she was very upset over a video that she had found on her boyfriend's computer. She said it showed a baby, and an adult male was sticking the tip of his penis in the baby's mouth. The baby was giggling and apparently thinking the whole thing was funny. From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. But for some reason, I still found it to be disturbing. Perhaps I just didn't understand the "art"? Hey, for all I know, the adult male was the baby's father, and he thought it would be a funny video to make to show the kid in the future. Who am I to judge what other people want to do with their kids? And according to some on here, I guess that video was not sexually suggestive unless the viewer found it to be sexually suggestive? [/B] Exactly what the hell are you saying? This is wrong and a non-rational argument. That act is most certainly harmful behavior and definitely sexual abuse. I don't care how you look at it. When a person (adult or another child) places their private parts into or near a child or touches another child's private parts, it is most certainly not OK. This is sexual abuse. That has nothing to do with nude paintings, drawing, photographs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #91 July 16, 2008 >Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl >pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. If there was a penis touching her, I'd agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #92 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuote>From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Yep. Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. What??? What specific photograph are you referring to, Keely? I never saw anything like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #93 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuote They are obviously borderline enough that some people feel they should be illegal. I have BOLDED the operative words , SOME PEOPLE will find an argument ANYWHEREYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #94 July 16, 2008 I was being sarcastic, Rosa. Of course I think that that sort of video is wrong. My point was that "wrong" is subjective. The video I mentioned is one where most of us will agree that it is wrong (though probably not all of us). The pictures in question here are not as clear. Some are sure that they are wrong, and others are sure that they are not. There is no definitive answer to the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Conundrum 1 #95 July 16, 2008 You were comparing apples to oranges. An actual sexual act being performed on a child, vs. a photo or painting of a nude child. It's on a totally different level entirely. Even if the painting was "suggstive". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #96 July 16, 2008 QuoteWhat??? What specific photograph are you referring to, Keely? I never saw anything like that. There are several pictures of his that I found to be not so tasteful, considering that the models are underage. I will not post a link to them on here because I think it would be in violation of the forum rules. And I don't really want to search for them again anyway because I don't care to look at that sort of stuff (or have it linked to my computer). As I said before, most of his pictures are fine. In fact, I think he's a great photographer. But I have seen a select few of his photos that I find questionable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #97 July 16, 2008 QuoteI was being sarcastic, Rosa. Of course I think that that sort of video is wrong. I know that you were being sarcastic. I think the argument that you gave is not valid. It's comparing apples and oranges. These girls were not being touched, and I never saw any sexually suggestive photographs either. Showing nudity is not the same thing as showing sexuality. Am I missing something, or have I not seen all of the pictures. What I have seen is not sexual, and I am quite private and modest as a person. Like I said, we don't know the artist's intention for the exhibit. It may even be to make a point about what we are arguing about. I don't think that I can talk about someone else's vision without hearing his or her explanation for doing what he or she did. It may be to make a point in the opposite direction of what some people are assuming. It would be different if it was truly sexual. I would find that most definitely wrong. I am a modest person myself, but I don't think that being nude qualifies as being sexy or sexual or sensual or anything. It's just being nude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #98 July 16, 2008 QuoteThe USofA has very prudish standards by Australian, and European standards. Do you mean judicially? I would beg to differ. Under Miller v. California (the seminal case - no pun intended) there are three requirements to ban material as "obscene:" 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards (this part I don't like because it encourages forum shopping) must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2)) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Now, it allowed many prosecutions because of it. But then they looked at child porn in New York v. Ferber (1982) and found unanimously that child porn was not prtected speech. The court found (reasonably, even in my libertarian leanings), the the government has a strong interest in banning child pornography. Child porn is inherently related to child abuse and/or exploitation, and to allow this stuff to be distributed would serve as a permanent reminder to future adults of what happened to them as kids. Furthermore, allowing it provides an economic incentive to make more child porn. And - here's the part the court found - child porn has little artistic value. Now - the photo in this exhibition is arguable as to whether it appeals to the prurient interest. That's why pictures of naked babies in bathtubs are not the type of things that can be banned. It's not that obscenity prosecutions don't occur. They do. A month ago, there was a mistrial declared in Los Angeles in the trial of Ira Isaacs, who was on trial for selling bestiality and scat films. Reason? Justice Kozinsky had a personal website with porn images and he caught serious heat. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #99 July 16, 2008 Quote>Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl >pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. If there was a penis touching her, I'd agree. Ah, so only penises can harm children? I see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #100 July 16, 2008 Ok, Keely. I'm not going to ask for more the information, since I understand how you feel about this. It seems to be something that you feel strongly about, and I respect that. I also feel the same about child abuse/child sexual abuse. I am very strongly against anyone who would harm a baby, child or teenager in any way. Trust me, I think there is no greater monstrosity in this world. Personally, I may have never seen the photographs that you did. I only did a google search using the artist's name to see some of his work. I am going based on what I've seen. I cannot comment on what you're referring to in your posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 2,400 #87 July 16, 2008 >From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #88 July 16, 2008 Quote>From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Yep. Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #89 July 16, 2008 QuoteWhat you are describing is the video capture of an ILLEGAL ACT perpetrated on a child. it has NOTHING to do with the pictures in question. My opinion of right or wrong is not based on what is legal or illegal. But actually, legality does have something to do with the pictures in question. Otherwise, they never would have been in the courts in the first place. They are obviously borderline enough that some people feel they should be illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VanillaSkyGirl 6 #90 July 16, 2008 Quote I once had a friend call me in tears because she was very upset over a video that she had found on her boyfriend's computer. She said it showed a baby, and an adult male was sticking the tip of his penis in the baby's mouth. The baby was giggling and apparently thinking the whole thing was funny. From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. But for some reason, I still found it to be disturbing. Perhaps I just didn't understand the "art"? Hey, for all I know, the adult male was the baby's father, and he thought it would be a funny video to make to show the kid in the future. Who am I to judge what other people want to do with their kids? And according to some on here, I guess that video was not sexually suggestive unless the viewer found it to be sexually suggestive? [/B] Exactly what the hell are you saying? This is wrong and a non-rational argument. That act is most certainly harmful behavior and definitely sexual abuse. I don't care how you look at it. When a person (adult or another child) places their private parts into or near a child or touches another child's private parts, it is most certainly not OK. This is sexual abuse. That has nothing to do with nude paintings, drawing, photographs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #91 July 16, 2008 >Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl >pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. If there was a penis touching her, I'd agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VanillaSkyGirl 6 #92 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuote>From the sound of it, I doubt the baby was actually harmed. I can easily see the potential harm in sex acts with babies. I'm sure you can as well. Yep. Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. What??? What specific photograph are you referring to, Keely? I never saw anything like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #93 July 16, 2008 QuoteQuote They are obviously borderline enough that some people feel they should be illegal. I have BOLDED the operative words , SOME PEOPLE will find an argument ANYWHEREYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #94 July 16, 2008 I was being sarcastic, Rosa. Of course I think that that sort of video is wrong. My point was that "wrong" is subjective. The video I mentioned is one where most of us will agree that it is wrong (though probably not all of us). The pictures in question here are not as clear. Some are sure that they are wrong, and others are sure that they are not. There is no definitive answer to the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Conundrum 1 #95 July 16, 2008 You were comparing apples to oranges. An actual sexual act being performed on a child, vs. a photo or painting of a nude child. It's on a totally different level entirely. Even if the painting was "suggstive". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #96 July 16, 2008 QuoteWhat??? What specific photograph are you referring to, Keely? I never saw anything like that. There are several pictures of his that I found to be not so tasteful, considering that the models are underage. I will not post a link to them on here because I think it would be in violation of the forum rules. And I don't really want to search for them again anyway because I don't care to look at that sort of stuff (or have it linked to my computer). As I said before, most of his pictures are fine. In fact, I think he's a great photographer. But I have seen a select few of his photos that I find questionable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #97 July 16, 2008 QuoteI was being sarcastic, Rosa. Of course I think that that sort of video is wrong. I know that you were being sarcastic. I think the argument that you gave is not valid. It's comparing apples and oranges. These girls were not being touched, and I never saw any sexually suggestive photographs either. Showing nudity is not the same thing as showing sexuality. Am I missing something, or have I not seen all of the pictures. What I have seen is not sexual, and I am quite private and modest as a person. Like I said, we don't know the artist's intention for the exhibit. It may even be to make a point about what we are arguing about. I don't think that I can talk about someone else's vision without hearing his or her explanation for doing what he or she did. It may be to make a point in the opposite direction of what some people are assuming. It would be different if it was truly sexual. I would find that most definitely wrong. I am a modest person myself, but I don't think that being nude qualifies as being sexy or sexual or sensual or anything. It's just being nude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #98 July 16, 2008 QuoteThe USofA has very prudish standards by Australian, and European standards. Do you mean judicially? I would beg to differ. Under Miller v. California (the seminal case - no pun intended) there are three requirements to ban material as "obscene:" 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards (this part I don't like because it encourages forum shopping) must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2)) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Now, it allowed many prosecutions because of it. But then they looked at child porn in New York v. Ferber (1982) and found unanimously that child porn was not prtected speech. The court found (reasonably, even in my libertarian leanings), the the government has a strong interest in banning child pornography. Child porn is inherently related to child abuse and/or exploitation, and to allow this stuff to be distributed would serve as a permanent reminder to future adults of what happened to them as kids. Furthermore, allowing it provides an economic incentive to make more child porn. And - here's the part the court found - child porn has little artistic value. Now - the photo in this exhibition is arguable as to whether it appeals to the prurient interest. That's why pictures of naked babies in bathtubs are not the type of things that can be banned. It's not that obscenity prosecutions don't occur. They do. A month ago, there was a mistrial declared in Los Angeles in the trial of Ira Isaacs, who was on trial for selling bestiality and scat films. Reason? Justice Kozinsky had a personal website with porn images and he caught serious heat. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #99 July 16, 2008 Quote>Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl >pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. If there was a penis touching her, I'd agree. Ah, so only penises can harm children? I see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VanillaSkyGirl 6 #100 July 16, 2008 Ok, Keely. I'm not going to ask for more the information, since I understand how you feel about this. It seems to be something that you feel strongly about, and I respect that. I also feel the same about child abuse/child sexual abuse. I am very strongly against anyone who would harm a baby, child or teenager in any way. Trust me, I think there is no greater monstrosity in this world. Personally, I may have never seen the photographs that you did. I only did a google search using the artist's name to see some of his work. I am going based on what I've seen. I cannot comment on what you're referring to in your posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Shotgun 1 #94 July 16, 2008 I was being sarcastic, Rosa. Of course I think that that sort of video is wrong. My point was that "wrong" is subjective. The video I mentioned is one where most of us will agree that it is wrong (though probably not all of us). The pictures in question here are not as clear. Some are sure that they are wrong, and others are sure that they are not. There is no definitive answer to the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #95 July 16, 2008 You were comparing apples to oranges. An actual sexual act being performed on a child, vs. a photo or painting of a nude child. It's on a totally different level entirely. Even if the painting was "suggstive". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #96 July 16, 2008 QuoteWhat??? What specific photograph are you referring to, Keely? I never saw anything like that. There are several pictures of his that I found to be not so tasteful, considering that the models are underage. I will not post a link to them on here because I think it would be in violation of the forum rules. And I don't really want to search for them again anyway because I don't care to look at that sort of stuff (or have it linked to my computer). As I said before, most of his pictures are fine. In fact, I think he's a great photographer. But I have seen a select few of his photos that I find questionable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VanillaSkyGirl 6 #97 July 16, 2008 QuoteI was being sarcastic, Rosa. Of course I think that that sort of video is wrong. I know that you were being sarcastic. I think the argument that you gave is not valid. It's comparing apples and oranges. These girls were not being touched, and I never saw any sexually suggestive photographs either. Showing nudity is not the same thing as showing sexuality. Am I missing something, or have I not seen all of the pictures. What I have seen is not sexual, and I am quite private and modest as a person. Like I said, we don't know the artist's intention for the exhibit. It may even be to make a point about what we are arguing about. I don't think that I can talk about someone else's vision without hearing his or her explanation for doing what he or she did. It may be to make a point in the opposite direction of what some people are assuming. It would be different if it was truly sexual. I would find that most definitely wrong. I am a modest person myself, but I don't think that being nude qualifies as being sexy or sexual or sensual or anything. It's just being nude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #98 July 16, 2008 QuoteThe USofA has very prudish standards by Australian, and European standards. Do you mean judicially? I would beg to differ. Under Miller v. California (the seminal case - no pun intended) there are three requirements to ban material as "obscene:" 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards (this part I don't like because it encourages forum shopping) must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2)) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Now, it allowed many prosecutions because of it. But then they looked at child porn in New York v. Ferber (1982) and found unanimously that child porn was not prtected speech. The court found (reasonably, even in my libertarian leanings), the the government has a strong interest in banning child pornography. Child porn is inherently related to child abuse and/or exploitation, and to allow this stuff to be distributed would serve as a permanent reminder to future adults of what happened to them as kids. Furthermore, allowing it provides an economic incentive to make more child porn. And - here's the part the court found - child porn has little artistic value. Now - the photo in this exhibition is arguable as to whether it appeals to the prurient interest. That's why pictures of naked babies in bathtubs are not the type of things that can be banned. It's not that obscenity prosecutions don't occur. They do. A month ago, there was a mistrial declared in Los Angeles in the trial of Ira Isaacs, who was on trial for selling bestiality and scat films. Reason? Justice Kozinsky had a personal website with porn images and he caught serious heat. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #99 July 16, 2008 Quote>Just as much as I can see the potential harm in letting a teenage girl >pose nude with her legs spread apart in a suggestive position. If there was a penis touching her, I'd agree. Ah, so only penises can harm children? I see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VanillaSkyGirl 6 #100 July 16, 2008 Ok, Keely. I'm not going to ask for more the information, since I understand how you feel about this. It seems to be something that you feel strongly about, and I respect that. I also feel the same about child abuse/child sexual abuse. I am very strongly against anyone who would harm a baby, child or teenager in any way. Trust me, I think there is no greater monstrosity in this world. Personally, I may have never seen the photographs that you did. I only did a google search using the artist's name to see some of his work. I am going based on what I've seen. I cannot comment on what you're referring to in your posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
