emre Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 I'll write a longer answer later, but first let me address rape. That is defined as an act committed against someone's will. Otherwise it is just sex. There has to be a victim. Who is the victim here? I did not say child porn is okay if consent is given. Rather, it is not child porn if consent is given, but something else which I do not have a label for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 <p><i>Sturges was righteously prosecuted because of the content of some of his photos. </i></p> <p>John K, you didn't mention how the case ended. You should have mentioned it, otherwise you're cherry-picking facts. And you still didn't answer my question above.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 "I did not say child porn is okay if consent is given. Rather, it is not child porn if consent is given,..." Wow! Explains why not wanting to better define the question as that's a pretty revealing statement in regard to a value system. "...it is not child porn if consent is given,..." It's not porn, if it's not illegal (socially unacceptable) either. Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 "Here is mine: I would be much more tolerant knowing the model had given consent." Emre, try to ask yourself, if it was a consent given by YOUR daughter at the age of 7, 8 even 10-or 12, would you be tolerant as well? The fact that there are artists that did it, does not give justification. It is imo an abuse of a child's innocence. The inability of a child to think of what does it means to give a concent, the implications for the future, a child needs a childhood and not be a model for nude photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 I didn't say that. Say your daughter took a naughty picture of herself in the mirror, forgot about it, rediscovered it thirty years down the road, then exhibited it. The significance of age is what I am exploring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Eugene, the key to your philosophy is "get away with it." This is a chat room. Denounce those who condemn child sexual abuse, but don't ask us to make legal cases. But please do explain why you think laws designed to protect children from sex abuse shouldn't apply to collectors of child porn (child porn is the topic, not your list of celebrities). That Elton John freely walks the earth is good news for his creditors but of no relevance to this discussion. He was once a creative person, but that may not provide cover for him forever ("get away with it" to use your phrase). Someone took a risk and decided he was not an immediate peril. Let's hope age is advancing on him fast enough to keep him out of more trouble. It's weird that celebrities and celebrity photographers are dragged into a discussion in order to defend child sexual abuse. Let us hope nobody thinks Paris Hilton is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 " Say your daughter took a naughty picture of herself in the mirror".... Emre, we are talking of series not " one naughty picture of herself in the mirror"....The significance is of being a " model" for nude photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 "There has to be a victim. Who is the victim here?" Emre, people who sexually victimize children characteristically do not know the answer to your question. Children are just cuddly animals to them. Right? Eugene, the outcome I know of for Sturges is that many of his photos can't be shown online and his evident motivations have been publicized. This surely cannot hurt print sales. I doubt he's in prison, if that's your question. Ask Elton, he'll know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Pnina: So if no adult was present then it's not child pornography? John: That is an interesting point. What constitutes victimization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 <p><i>He was once a creative person, but that may not provide cover for him forever </i></p> <p>I am outraged by your statement. I am an advocate of a liberal world where artists do not get thrown into prisons, but that does not mean that I consider artists any more special than other people. I want a liberal world for everyone. Yes, the true "perverts" should be separated from any possibility of influencing children, but the current public opinion about the issue of children is borderline-paranoic. If you watch the news, you surely have heard that some states are pushing towards the addresses of people convicted of pedophilia to be made available publicly. That is outrageous for a society that respects individual rights. What next, lynching?</p> <p><i>the outcome I know of for Sturges is that many of his photos can't be shown online</i></p> <p><a href="http://images.google.com/images? svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd =1&q=jock+sturges&spell=1">How </a><a href="http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/ artphotogallery/photographers/jock_sturges_01.html">do </a><a href="http:// www.amazon.com/Jock-Sturges/dp/3908247357">you </a><a href="http:// www.artnet.com/artist/16241/jock-sturges.html">explain </a><a href="http:// www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Sturges/index.html">this?</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 "I am an advocate of a liberal world where artists do not get thrown into prisons, but that does not mean that I consider artists any more special than other people." "Yes, the true "perverts" should be separated from any possibility of influencing children,..." And by who's standards shall "perverts" be defined? By adding the modifier "true," it allows for degrees of perversion to enter the equation as by your above, only "true" perverts shall separated from? Standards do require definition and sans an accepted definition, one can't have standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Eugene, the dimwit Amy Stein has made an assumption it's that piture - that is in fact the wrong one and I don't know how she even guessed it might be the one she posted! If you'd checked what was written in the comments on her site you would find a link to the correct picture. It's also discussed in the Elton John thread in Casual Conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisionphotography Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Well Eugene, since you called out me by name I have actually personally looked at both SALLY and Jock and I did not FEEL that these people, some family's, kids and it looks like brothers, playmates and all sorts of people that were taken together in the nude doing all sorts of things were taken somewhat against their will. I felt VERY disturbed and very disjointed by Hendrik's pictures. Now I am NOT the FBI, nor am I a fan of JOCKS or SALLY'S work or do I say "HEY MAN" let's go to one of their exhibits if they come to town. Well, I right now live in Florida so I don't see that happening but that is beside the point. What you are doing is for me to explain my intuiting and feelings on the matter so I will do that very simple A MAN who dresses up his daughter. Oh wait UNDRESSES her and makes her pose in front of the world in a pensive way for MEN to look at and calls it art when he knows that her "at the age less than 14" is WRONG. Now I am not fond of people who point finger (finger pointer Eugene). I am not fond of people who assume that one hasn't been to any museums or lived less than five miles from the biggest of them in DC. Actually taken their children there three times a week and learning from every aspect that they can. I'm not fond of you not understanding that I didn't just half look at what he does but went and studied EVERY PICTURE and her eyes to find her soul in them and understand that I felt she was trapped just like she was meant to be in her pictures. I have traveled all over the world to Paris, Germany Japan and many other countries and always studied their art. When I look at pictures here I do not just rate quickly but I look at pictures and feel them and make comments on them. I am not someone who judges something quickly. In the Smithonian I had no problem taking my children all through the paintings of the Elizabethan Era, Renaissance and other fine arts as well as many modern artists works. That is not the point. The point is I looked at what he did, saw it and new that he had overstepped my understanding of what a FATHER should be doing. He could have stopped at a certain point and he went a bit farther that I think he should have into a sensuality that maybe I feel he should go. It is my opinion and one you should not accuse me of be ignorant over. As for the way things USED be we. 100 years ago woman were getting married at 14 and having babies by 15. So, our society is different. Things are different now and I don't expect my 14 year old to be taking of her clothes for ANYONE. Get my drift? So, consider me educated and not ignorant, well if you want to. Also someone who doesn't shelter her kids so don't consider me one of those "people" either who does that. So quit pointing the finger at me. My head is starting to show an indention, Ouch (sad face). I have to be honest. I just wanted to come on here and give my opinion and not get told my opinion was crap. I will say this. It dawned on me. What about all those "KIDS" who are taking off their clothes in movies? hmmm I started remembering back in my mind of those movies while growing up in adolescence and as a teenager where their was a naked body or breast here and there. I forgot all about that. Any discussion about that? Seems like we forgot all about that impact. Why is THAT ok but not still photography? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Eugene - the reason there are "banned" pictures on the internet, and discussion and photo sharing sites for paedophiles, is all to do with certain governments and freedom of speech. If a government wants to stop this sort of thing they can do - look at Burma today...all of a sudden no internet...just like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Eugene: "What next, lynching?" That's Limbaugh-think: protecting children from photo-wankers (who ask little Eugene Jr's "consent" or obtain "parent's permission" and are, after all ARTISTS and CELEBRITIES) is evidently mere Political Correctness. Next you'll be saying it's PC to damn the "N" word. This thread shows precisely why civilized societies train policemen. The Sturges you linked is for obvious reasons not the Sturges he cannot show online. Hmm. Some may find this hard to understand. Knock-knock, anybody home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 <p>Pete said: <i>Eugene - the reason there are "banned" pictures on the internet, and discussion and photo sharing sites for paedophiles is all to do with certain governments and freedom of speech</i></p> <p>Pete, I did not post a link to a pedophile forum. I posted two links to respected galleries who can legally stand up for what they are showing. And, by the way, you contradict yourself by saying that "banned" can be up online due to freedom of speech. If something is covered under freedom of speech, it cannot be "banned" by definition.</p> <p>John said: <i>The Sturges you linked is for obvious reasons not the Sturges he cannot show online.</i></p> <p>So that means you and Pete disagree with each other, right?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 And this folks is what happens to "intelligent" conversation when folks refuse to define terms regarding an overly simplistic question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I should have included more of Eugene's stuff: "the current public opinion about the issue of children is borderline-paranoic. If you watch the news, you surely have heard that some states are pushing towards the addresses of people convicted of pedophilia to be made available publicly. That is outrageous for a society that respects individual rights." Evidently we're talking about mere "current public opinion" and child porn is a mere "issue" that's overblown. Evidently things were better for certain people in another era. And convicted child predators deserve privacy. Hmm. IMO it's better that they're not hounded by mobs after they've served their time, but since there's no "cure" and the world's full of enablers (parental consent etc) it's crucial that cops regularly remind/threaten them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 <p>Micki said: <i>I will do that very simple A MAN who dresses up his daughter.</i></p> <p>How is that different from a WOMAN?</p> <p>Micki further said: <i>Oh wait UNDRESSES her and makes her pose in front of the world in a pensive way for MEN to look at</i></p> <p>Whoa! Something is clearly wrong in your assumption if you think Kerstens was making porn for men to look at. Or maybe you think there are no WOMEN in galleries? No female curators?</p> <p><i>I felt she was trapped just like she was meant to be in her pictures.</i></p> <p>Again, you're way off base in your assumptions. Yeah, right, Vermeer's subjects were trapped. All this brouhaha on rethinking old masters is just the same old entrapment. You lost me here.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Thomas: The question is about the definition. If we had a simple definition then the problem would be solved. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitemistic Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Hang on. I'm not aware of any of Sturges images that can't be shown online. Sturges is not a child pornographer! We have a real conflict in our society over sexuality. We have nudity and sexuality all mixed up. Nudity is the natural state of man. Clothing is the aberration. So, you guys are now going to claim that you've never seen an attractive teenage girl on the street and had "impure" (yes, I'm being sarcastic) thoughts about her? Isn't that pornographic? That's some man's daughter! <p>My point is that we have gone overboard. Yes, there are pediphiles in this world. But just because you might lust "in your heart" after a hot teenage girl doesn't mean you are going to act out and rape her. Pediphiles are an aberration, just like lots of other bad guys. We cannot construct enough laws to keep them from acting out in tragic ways. Convicted and monitored pediphiles do it all the time. So our reaction is to arrest mothers who take snapshots of their kids in the tub. <p>If you remove every photo of a naked child under sixteen from print and from the web, pediphiles will still act out tragically against children. They do not need the stimulus of naked pictures of kids to cause them to do what they do. Most have never seen the child they attact naked. <p>The whole argument against child nudity in photography is specious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 "The question is about the definition. If we had a simple definition then the problem would be solved. Duh." Here's your original comment. "If you believe that displaying pictures of naked children is wrong, does it become all right if the pictures are of someone who has become an adult since the pictures were taken?" First, answer the question: By who's standards? "Duh." Sorry, "Duh." doesn't qualify as intelligent writing and I ain't seen any intelligence in any of the above comments. When folks grow up and begin to deal with other's values (because they see themselves as the only aspect of a complex society), then progress, in regard to the question can be made. You have no idea how silly the above responses have been (my view) as they skirt issues of societal standards and what the general population wants for their society as bashing becomes an answer. Wouldn't it just be easier on the conversation if folks came out and said, the only laws they like are ones which agree with their POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisionphotography Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Eugene, again you are a silly man. My assumption is that HE, she, them, THEY, IT, are, would, could and SHOULD, hopefully wouldn't be anywhere near you whenever they try to understand just WHO you are trying to offend or what side you are really on. HA! You are a silly man, or female, or GOD (who by the way might be a man or woman, I would hate to make the assumption) for all I know to just start saying anything at this point to make me feel like I would be on the defense. I said all that I can say. made my point as best I could with my obvious NON ability to get through your head as best as I could. I am truly sorry. I only wanted to let you know. I don't mind those other guys/gals. But HIM (yes, HIM) the one I saw taking in the picture for the interview. Oh, yeah you figure it out. HE, bugged me. HA! I didn't like his shifty eyes, maybe it was because HE really was sad because HE didn't get enough pudding when HE was younger. I don't know but I do know I just don't like the pictures of his NAKED daughter. That is all. See ALL smiles. It is my opinion. Now quit pointing that finger. My head is really hurting now. he he And just so you know I DO know woman look at porn too. Gosh, I didn't mean to leave my own sex out of this. (sigh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisionphotography Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Thomas I just read your comment. Gee I wish you would have wrote that way at the top. I would have just skipped this forum question. :) Duh, HA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitemistic Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 The whole issue comes down to exploitation of kids. Is it exploiting kids to take photos of them naked against their will? Yeah. Just as it is exploitation of adults to do the same. But an adult can give legal consent and a child can't. <p>Does a parent have the right to take photos of their kids naked against their will? Society doesn't know how to answer that question. Does the child have no free will until age 18 or 21? Does a parent have the legal right to supercede the will of the child? Society says they can in some areas, but they can't in others. Who makes that distinction? Society? Which society? <p>In many societies children routinely drink wine with meals. In the US, it is illegal to provide alchohol to a child. Should children drink wine or not? Should they be photographed by their parents naked or not? By others or not? Are those who look at photos of naked children, sexualized or not, pediphiles? Or, are those who actually sexually molest children pediphiles? Should there be laws making it illegal to look at photos of naked children? Where does that leave parents? What if their children don't want their parents to see them naked? Is it then exploitation if the parent then does so? <p>Society suffers from schizophrenia in these areas. How do you base laws on the schizophrenic views of millions of individuals? <p>Every time you say, "there ought to be a law," the wall of laws you build to keep others out is boxing you in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now