Jump to content

Is it child pornography if the child has become an adult?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not all photographs, drawings, paintings, written descriptions , etc. of a naked child are pornographic.

You know pornography when you see it, some people might try to jcloak their pornographic iamges in the guise of art, but you still know that they are , at their fundamental core pornographic in intent.

 

On the other hand a non-pornographic image of any person, place, event or thing can of course stimulate sexual thoughts of a mind inclined to find images or descriptions of that subject sexually arousing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the answer is that it doesn't matter if the child is an adult. I believe it could still be prosecuted. The issue is probably when you say "naked" children, in what context.

 

I saw the image owned by Elton John and seized by police from a gallery (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/26/elton-john-defends-photo-_n_65937.html). It is probably way over the top, but I can see how there is a large degree of opinion involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in the legal response. I'm interested in what people intuitively feel; esp. those would who be offended in the subject is still a child, so judge it by your own standards. I'm trying to gauge the weight people place on age and consent in coming to a decision, since some people object on the grounds that "the child is not old enough to know what it means".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellis, regarding your first post. Isn't the problem that you or I may know it when we see it, but

"we" don't seem to be able to know it when we see it? Witness the varying and heated

opinions on the Nan Goldin thread. The fact is that the "I" who matters in the "I'll know it

when I see it" scenario is usually an FBI agent, a policeman, a politician, a prosecutor, or a

judge, none of whom I trust as much as you or me to judge the difference between art and

pornography.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent of this question was specifically to imply that our "feelings" are relevant to the definition of "child porn"... to find out what we think we can get away with, since "child porn" is a purely legal question, not a matter of our "feelings."

 

In the US a superior court's initial findings, rather than photographer's "feelings" or theories or Webster definition, or even the ultimate trial jury, makes erotic photos of children into felony evidence for prosecution, irrespective some pervert's "feelings" or intent.

 

"Intent" and "today's age of former child" are irrelevant distractions: the file or film or print constitutes the porn, and that's what jails people. Child porn from 1920 can land you in prison.

 

Perverts should be ESPECIALLY fearful of parents who "consent" because that turn this into "conspiracy" bringing the FBI, even if it's not interstate or Internet.

 

Parents facilitate and take part in sexual abuse of their own children all the time.

 

Why are we trying to justify child porn here?

 

One's "own standards" are irrelevant. This is defined by law and society, not by the "feelings" of individual perverts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm interested in what people intuitively feel;..."

 

If this refers to my post, what we feel, has very much to do with societal norms so this has to be considered in a question of this nature.

 

Where is this question being asked? What societal standards are we using, underground, polite society or local (regional)? Are we in India, Pakistan, France, Brazil, China, Iran or the USA. Or are we in Moscow, Vatican, Beijing, Paris or San Francisco? Are we in SOHO, the Bible thumping South, The Sudan (Darfur region), The US Supreme Court court room chamber or The Castro? Where exactly are these values being discussed and by whom as the prevailing morality of the venue makes a huge difference as to a generalized response in regard to your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is a question about sexuality in photographic images, if so please be so kind as to say so.

 

"If you believe that displaying pictures of naked children is wrong,..."

 

Please define your above. Are you writing about bathtub pics of a child in a non-descrip pose with bubbles and a yellow rubber ducky when six months old or images designed to give a (perv) pedophile a full blown woody?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brooke Shields said once that the picture of her that she did topless made her feel awful for a very long time. I don't think anyone under the legal age would be in the right mind would be me mentally able to have their picture out for public consuption. Were talking THEM not even the feelings of the people that would actually be seeing the picture.

 

I think this man Hendrik Kerstens was a good point to bring up. Does he have a right to do what he does. I don't think he does. I don't think he has the right. I personally think that if he were in the US it would be considered child abuse. I am kind of sickened not only by the fact that he is doing it but by the way she looks. Knowing her age in some of those pictures I was almost ill looking at them. Honestly.

 

I'm sorry but there is something wrong with that, so if I am repulsed by it I think that gives you my answer.

 

A man or woman taking pictures of anyone under a certain age to show off to the world or anyone else for gain of pleasure art or otherwise is wrong.

 

I do agree with Fred. Who is going to really regulate it. HOW am I going to know if you are 14 or 18? My daughter is 14 but some of her friends LOOK 18 and some look 12. I can't even tell.

 

I looked 20 when I was 13. It is so confusing now.

 

So, I would almost be saying 16 and younger. I would have to be saying that. Unfortunately. GIRLS/BOYS in their preteens. Lets not forget the boys. They are just as abused.

 

A mom who takes pictures of her four and five year old taken a bath in bubbles is not. PERIOD. If said four year old grows up and wants to show the world this picture when they become a movie star and it goes onto some television show then I see nothing wrong with that.

 

If said boyfriend took a picture of the movie star when she was 14 in her underwear and movie star wants to show the world then have at it. THEN she is an adult. That is her doing. If she were naked it would be another story. That is how I feel.

 

PERVERTS should not be given any more things to look at then they already do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Micki Ferguson said: <i>I am kind of sickened not only by the fact that [Hendrik

Kerstens] is doing it but by the way she looks.</i></p>

 

<p>What do you find sickening about Kertens' photos? If you find them sickening,

you have a lot of homework to do on the history of photography and art. A trip to the

Netherlands' and a few museums wouldn't hurt as well.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's very simple. Imagine an objectionable picture with a naked child. Would the picture become acceptable in your eyes if you knew the child and had given consent as an adult?"

 

You seem to intentionally be skirting the issue of societal values/morality which define "objectionable" and one needs to ask, by what societal/sub-societal values is this judgment being made? What sort of image are you writing of and by who's standards is this image being found objectionable?

 

Without definition, it's intellectually an open border with no ability to intelligently answer your question.

 

Me? Personally, I'm a closed intellectual door. Why? In the simple, leave the children alone. Let them make "their" decision, when they've come of legal age. Now, what do you think is going be the response of a producer of child porn?

 

You need to define (flesh out) your question as sans definition, you're just throwing mud on a wall so as to see what flies will be attracted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To make a further argument, Sally Mann isn't the only U.S. photographer whose work is

relevant here. <a href="http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/artphotogallery/photographers/

jock_sturges_01.html">Jock Sturges</a> is worth mentioning as well.</p>

 

<p>To conclude, I already listed four artists whose work is relevant. The rest of the folks on

this

thread (with the exception of Michael) are just babbling out their lawyer-wannabe ass

instead of answering the question.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was pornograhpy when taken, it is pornography even 100 years later. Or 1,000 years.

 

Now there are many pics of unclothed family memebrs and events around one's house. These never were pornography. They are simply naked bottom shots. I have seen many of kids in bathtubs, on the potty, running wild indoors or out. So what? We all have a naked body under our clothes that is not pornographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emre, what's your "feeling" about rape? You didn't answer that earlier and it's virtually identical to your original topic.

 

The "simple answer" is defined by law, at least in the US. Possession or production of "child porn" is a felony here, as is rape for the same reason. Emre, do you understand why?

 

You would be "tolerant if the model had given consent." You are saying you would make "child porn" (your phrase) with the consent of a child (the "model"). Seems like rape to me.

 

The notion that one "feels" a child's parents may give consent for erotic photos of their children means specifically that the photographer and parents do not recognize the humanity of the child: Gang rape.

 

Sturges was righteously prosecuted because of the content of some of his photos. Their beauty allowed a controversy, as a minority thinks beauty cannot coexist with evil, and that ignorance is bliss. He would have had no problem if he'd photographed adults in any sort of sexual activity because, unlike Mapplethorpe, Sturges showed in private galleries and for money, rather than in taxpayer-supported venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am not skirting it. I am asking you to evaluate the question based on your values."

 

You really are skirting as you posed a wide open question which clearly suffers from a lack of definition.

 

My values (answer) have no meaning other than being that of a respondent to an overly simplistic poll question. Without definition, the answers have absolutely no meaning or merit other than taking up (no disrespect intended) idle bandwidth.

 

Meaningful responses to the question need to take into consideration the value system (and the basis of their morality) each respondent holds near and dear and what it is you're asking, needs to be better defined as what one finds offensive, another will embrace. Sans exploring the basis of a value system, all responses have no meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...