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

[mvisionphotography]

LOL ~ YES, The longest forum thread ever and there are really two of them (one in in Casual Conversations along these same lines).

 

Exactly what you said, challenging the views from time to time. Actually I think my views have become stronger on some things because of these discussions. Things I had not thought of in a long time. Things I had not thought of because of the internet and now that my daughter takes self portraits of herself as a 14 year old.

 

Things change when you are a parents or something happens in your life that changes you forever. Something traumatic. Life experience as they call it.

 

I also agree that my views have changed about certain types of nudity and art. Or rather solidified it by some of the reading here.

 

Thanks `~ micki

[Norma Desmond]

Thanks for your answer. You have dealt with many important issues. And some of your

approach is sound. BUT . . . I hope you don't mind a few paragraphs from Dickens

(<i>Hard Times</i>) to begin my response:

<p><p>

<i>"You don't know," said Sissy, half crying, "what a stupid girl I am. All through school

hours I make mistakes. Mr. and Mrs. M'Choakumchild call me up, over and over again,

regularly to make mistakes. I can't help them. They seem to come naturally.... Today, for

instance, Mr. M'Choakumchild was explaining to us about Natural Prosperity.... And he

said, Now, this schoolroom is a Nation. And in this nation there are fifty millions of money.

Isn't this a prosperous nation? Girl number twenty, isn't this a prosperous nation, and an't

you in a thriving state?"<br>

"What did you say?" asked Louisa.<br>

"Miss Louisa, I said I didn't know. I thought I couldn't know whether it was a prosperous

nation or not, and whether I was in a thriving state or not unless I knew who had got the

money, and whether any of it was mine. But that had nothing to do with it. It was not in

the figures at all," said Sissy, wiping her eyes.<br>

"That was a great mistake of yours," observed Louisa.<br>

"Yes, Miss Louisa, I know it was now. Then Mr. M'Choakumchild said he would try me

again. And he said, This schoolroom is an immense town, and there are a million of

inhabitants, and only five and twenty are starved to death in the streets, in the course of a

year. What is your remark on that proportion? And my remark was -- for I couldn't think of

a better one -- that I thought it must be just as hard upon those who were starved,

whether the others were a million, or a million million. And that was wrong too."<br>

"Of course it was."<br>

Then Mr. M'Choakumchild said he would try me once more... And I find (Mr. M. said) that

in

a given time a hundred thousand persons went to sea on long voyages, and only five

hundred of them were drowned or burnt to death. What is the percentage? And I said

Miss;" here Sissy fairly sobbed as confessing with extreme contrition to her greatest error;

"I said it was nothing."<br>

"Nothing, Sissy?"<br>

"Nothing, Miss -- to the relations and friends of the people who were killed. I shall never

learn!"</i>

<p><p>

That pretty much sums up how I feel about precision bombing.

<p><p>

But I will also say that I'm

afraid I do have grave doubts about this being a precision war. Firstly, I have doubts that

the administration running the war cares as much as you do or as General Lee did about

unnecessary loss of

life. If they did, they wouldn't have exaggerated and cherry-picked evidence in order to

enter an unnecessary war of choice.

<p><p>

Secondly, even if I were to give them humanitarian

credits which they have not shown they deserve and the political benefit of the doubt on

the decision to go to war, they are clearly an incompetent bunch.

They couldn't get Katrina right. They can't manage not to overpay for toilet seats. They

can't supply their fighting troops with proper armor. They put Brownie in charge of FEMA

and Gonzales in charge of the DOJ. But I'm going to believe them when

they tell me they've used the utmost precision to avoid collateral damage? Sorry, not

buying it.

<p><p>

Unfortunately, as General and then President Eisenhower predicted, the military-industrial

complex that this nation has become does have a distinct interest in war and does seem to

have grown fond of it.

<p><p>

Thank you for including this sage advice: <i>"That is the debate which should be won

before war has been accepted as the solution."</i>

<p><p>

Unfortunately, not much substantive debate takes place in this country anymore. Certainly

not about the current situation which you refer to as a precision war and I would refer to

as a moral, political, and practical catastrophe.

<p><p>

Regardless of any of this, political disagreement or not, my point was that nothing is

absolute and clearly the engagement of war, even necessary wars (which I do believe have

been fought) trumps protecting children. Killing children may have to be justified to fight a

righteous war, but that

undercuts the notion that protecting children is an absolute moral imperative.

[Norma Desmond]

I may have shortchanged you. Honestly, I've known Nan Goldin's work for a while and the

minute I saw her stuff I thought of you. It just seemed similar to what you do on various

stylistic and esthetic levels, sexuality aside. The natural

way she handles stuff, the around-the-house, unadorned mentality, the exaggerated use

of color and light here and there. Given your

moral outrage at this photo of hers, I thought you were letting that influence your opinion

of her photos in general, especially since you had said you weren't that familiar with her

stuff. But I know you're a discerning person and you like what you like. So if you tell me

that

"arggggh" about her work wasn't influenced by your moral dislike and was an honest

assessment of her talent, I believe you and apologize for not having faith that you were

making that distinction.

 

But, whether she might get 1s, 2s, or 3s from Pnetters is a joke. Of course she would. But

any decent photographer who goes a little outside the oversaturated landscape or busty

thin female nude genre would as well. Ratings from Pnetters, as we all know, proves

NOTHING. I'm sure photographs from those of Avedon to Adams to Cartier Bresson would

get low ratings.

[Norma Desmond]

"It's very clear, the Commandment refers to the 'unlawful' taking of life but many like to

twist this Commandment to suit their agenda.

 

We disagree on what's clear about the Commandment but we agree that many like to twist

it to suit their agenda.

 

"In the final, it does [boil down to black and white]."

 

You think it's black and white and I don't. Glad that's settled.

 

"Intentionally so as life is real simple but many, for their benefit, like to obfuscate as this

obfuscation serves their purposes."

 

Simplicity and assaults on intellectualism run rampant when the ruling class wants to keep

the masses ignorant in order to maintain power. Education, research, and critical thinking

are not obfuscation, although they can be. Overcomplicating and oversimplifying can each

be obfuscating.

 

"Considering what's being displayed, daily, on the news, pretty much right up there with

zero of that happening."

 

I agree, there is little discernment and tv news is awful and that's a problem for society.

 

"Educating society? To what, your POV?"

 

No, educating society so that we are exposed to a variety of viewpoints and a wealth of

available facts, statistics, and data in order to make up our own minds. There will always

be some bias in all education, all reading that we do, all discussions that we have. There

are ways to recognize that bias and to filter it out to greater or lesser extents, even if we

can't ever get rid of it completely.

 

"Yeah! More talk. The poor misunderstood perv. Got it. LOL"

 

No, it's not about the poor misunderstood pervs, LOL. It's about the schmucks who allow

crime to continue unabated by thinking that strict punishment will solve everything

instead of paying some attention to root causes and prevention.

 

" '...true crime prevention...'? As opposed to what, just sitting around and talking about it

or providing therapy for the whack jobs so they can feel good about themselves?"

 

No, not therapy for whack jobs, although clearly some can use it. Crime prevention. I'm

sure your local police have some ideas on prevention for which they are underfunded

because prisons are getting all the bucks.

 

"Society (do good, feel good courts) won't allow us to protect our children because the bad

person's just a misunderstood victim also."

 

No, it's not about the bad person being misunderstood. It's about the bad person being

stopped before he does something bad.

[mvisionphotography]

Yes Fred, my arghhhh was that I thought THAT one photo was wrong on her part. AND partly I was being a bit sarcastic myself on the "YELLOW" comment as I do tend to try and be a bit yellow in my pictures (because I like it).

 

I have also tried to say I do not dislike her work. Not a follower of her work, a bit retro which is a style I truly do LOVE and do have a bit of style of myself, but I do not dislike it at all. I just feel she is warrenting an arghhhh on that photo.

 

I do also want to say this. Something I haven't said.

 

I don't think that she should be getting arrested for this picture or SIR JOHN should either. I think they are not really doing these things out of harm. I think there is a bit of a lesson here. I truly think all these things are very "miss managed" on the rules and who governs them and who really says what is what. Take it away and don't show it anymore. But hey, now it is everywher so "whatever" as my daughter would say.

 

I'm not for "GOING AFTER" her or him.

 

I just wanted my opinion known on this matter.

 

I am hoping she will be able to get on with her art and make more pictures and leave all this behind her.

 

I can only say thank Fred that you would even consider me anywhere in a near sentence with someone who has a vision such as her. She might make some weird decisions but I think sometimes I think it is just how we see things at the time. Again, that is why we all have "FREEDOM" here in our country to speak about these things. I also have the ability to turn my computer or TV of off or not buy her picture. We have thought of that haven't we. I do have that control.

 

Boy, I sure am glad I haven't had to listen to a single thing about this in the media. I think my head would explode ;)

[jtk]

By and large "root causes" will not be addressed. Ever. "Root causes" are the ultimate dodge.

 

In its collective accumulated wisdom our generic civilization takes other protective steps. Protective of what? Children. The essence of the perversion we're discussing here is that certain individuals don't "get" that children are a special case, a protected class. The essence isn't sexual acts themselves, it's the failure to "get," the failure to understand this issue.

 

If one knows dogs, and I don't mean those that are so highly bred they're freaks, one knows that pups roll onto their backs and pee into the air when threatened. A "normal" adult dog then stops the threat. That's hard-wired. If however the adult continues the attack, a full-hearted owner will then "put it down." Kill it. That's an ethical responsibility. There is no fix for bad wiring. The alternative is to let the wiring blow out the rest of the species, as man's best friend for millenia becomes a feral thing.

 

The same applies to people who think of children as consenting sexual partners. We don't put them down, which may be a mistake, but we do try to control them for the rest of their lives as there is no cure.

 

If one is uncomfortable with that reality, one needs to be very careful because this is one of the most basic realities of civilization.

[Norma Desmond]

" 'Root causes' are the ultimate dodge."

 

No, they're not.

[Norma Desmond]

AND . . .

 

If, while you're putting down the dog that molested your child or while you're controlling it

for the rest of its life, you're not also trying to figure out why the hell more and more dogs

are molesting children and more are doing so in your backyard than in other backyards, then

more and more you will have yourself to blame when the next dog comes along and molests

your next child. Your ego and dick may swell when you shoot the dogs dead or throw them in

the pen for life but the children you're charged with protecting don't get helped, they just

continue to get molested while you're feeling full of yourself.

[petemillis]

I know why more and more children are being molested by dogs here - it's because more and more dumb people see it as "big" and "clever" and "cool" to have rottweilers, bull terriers (staffordshire, pits and so on) and are too stupid to accept the responsibility that goes with it - leaving a toddler shut in a room with a pit bull terrier, letting little 7 year old kid take big Rottie for a walk on his own. So, while the dog itself isn't the root cause of the problem of kids being killed by dogs, irresposible parenting and irresponsible dog ownership is. How do we prevent kids being harmed or killed by American Pit Bull Terriers and other "dangerous" dogs? Do we hold up pictures of what they have done to kids and say "come on parents, please me more responsible", and then let other kids be maimed and prosecute irresponsible parents and owners after the event? Should we just accept that we might lose a few more kids on the way to having more responsible parenting? Irresponsible parents and irresponsible dog owners and irresponsible anyone tends not to learn from example anyway - they just don't care and they'll always be irresponsible. Or do we, as a society, make a decision that dangerous, or potentially dangerous, animals have no place in our over-crowded towns and therefore ban the import and breeding of them, hopefully reducing the risk of another child being killed? This is of course the precautionary principle to risk assessment and errs on the side of protection of kids as opposed to being in favour of someone's right to own a pet. It may not solve the problem as the same irresponsible "chav scum" people who choose to keep such an animal will not care for the law anyway - but it does make that ownership illegal, and there is the tool in place to be able to seize the dog, prosecute the owner, prosecute the importer or breeder, and "potentially" protect a child. It all boils down to whether the desire to try and protect kids is more, or less, important than the right to own a dog.

 

Getting back to the publication of the Goldin picture, and similar "innocent" images like this one - I certainly don't think these would cause someone to become a paedophile - that's a big red herring. And I agree that the causes of paedophilia lie elsewhere. And I think if this is a purely innocent image of your own children at play, and you're not someone who is an abuser of children, and this is a picture that is just part of your family growing up, and is alongside typical family photos - then fine.

 

But my bigger concern is the publication and public display of it - it doesn't respect the children or the children's right to privacy and it exploits the children purely for the gain of adults. If we say this image is acceptable then there is "potential" for commissioning of works of art like this, which we would therefore be saying is ok as how can you discern between an innocent shot and a commissioned posed shot? And this would/could lead to exploitation of kids for the making of this sort of image. There IS a market for imagery like this and if we are saying it's acceptable (in the name of art and rights of free expression of course) then that demand will create a supply of "legal indecent images of children". If we say "no" to it, then that's again following the precautionary principle - but is that so wrong? Should we just say it's ok and allow people to go ahead and expoit kids in this way? Of course kids get exploited in all sorts of ways in other cultures and here at home - but is there any harm in chipping away at the problem bit by bit. Or is it case that only a few percent of kids are exploited so the problem isn't big enough to even consider?

Mate, I know how I feel about this, and I don't think I'll be changing my thoughts now.

[petemillis]

Sorry, just read last line of my previous post - and it sounds rude. It's meant to sound like "oh man - what to do" so of thing (we use the expression "mate" said in a certina way but it's hard to express that way in writing!)

[beeman458]

""In the final, it does [boil down to black and white]."

 

You think it's black and white and I don't. Glad that's settled. "

 

Where are you getting the above quote from?

[beeman458]

"No, educating society so that we are exposed to a variety of viewpoints and a wealth of available facts, statistics, and data in order to make up our own minds."

 

And in real terms, you want the reader to come to your conclusion, or you won't be happy.

 

"There will always be some bias in all education, all reading that we do, all discussions that we have."

 

The current educational organizations of "higher" learning are rift with bias education. Me, I'm glad to be free from this form of "forced" thinking where those who think differently than the ruling junta are openly oppressed in the US. Freedom to think what you will is what happens "after" you leave today's education institutions.

 

"It's about the schmucks who allow crime to continue unabated by thinking that strict punishment will solve everything instead of paying some attention to root causes and prevention."

 

"...the schmucks who allow crime to continue unabated by thinking that strict punisment will..." That's it, blame the good guys. LOL Yeah, the pervs are all messed up cause they're were incarcerated because of their bad behavior. :)

 

The root cause is because people in general are a bunch of rat bastards (that's all of us) and this genetic fact is going be passed on generation after generation. Some folks you can reach and get to toe the line but millions, no matter what feel good program you institute, won't fix a bad gene. That's a fact you're going need to get used to, not I. In your world of non-absolutes, that's an absolute. :)

 

"No, not therapy for whack jobs, although clearly some can use it. Crime prevention. I'm sure your local police have some ideas on prevention for which they are underfunded because prisons are getting all the bucks."

 

Crime continues unabated, despite local feel good efforts even as you point typical fingers of blame. Yeah! Because we lock up bad guys, the local cops don't have drug therapy money as folks clammer for more liberal drug laws. We want the rule of law but.......

 

"It's about the bad person being stopped before he does something bad."

 

Yeay! That's it. Mind control. Didn't Tom Cruise make a movie along your above lines. Or should we go back in time to "1984". :) Ya can't control people, no matter how good intentioned your intentions. Part of growing up is accepting people as they really are, not how you want them to be. Anything more than that, is wishful thinking.

[beeman458]

"Anything more than that, is wishful thinking."

 

And just for the record, the above is an absolute. :)

[Norma Desmond]

"And in real terms, you want the reader to come to your conclusion, or you won't be

happy."

 

Thomas, It is my perception that the way you continue to have a dialogue, again and again

and again and again and again, is to put words in the mouth of the person (me, in this

case) to whom you are talking, words that you believe are there but that are not. The

above is, obviously, only one example. When you and I talk, there seem to three people

involved. You, me, and the person you are creating (the one who speaks in liberal mumbo-

jumbo) who you are actually talking to instead of me. That person you create is typically

known as a straw man, because he never really existed. While it's fun to see what ideas

you will attribute to me each time I actually say something very different than the thing

you would like to argue against, it's an exercise in futility.

[sitemistic]

"Or is it case that only a few percent of kids are exploited so the problem isn't big enough to

even consider? Mate, I know how I feel about this, and I don't think I'll be changing my

thoughts now."

 

The problem is not that kids are being exploited in photos. The problem is that the majority

of kids who are abused, sexually and psychologically, are abused by their own parents or

family members. But that fact is uncomfortable for us, so we worry about pediphiles seeing

pictures of naked kids.

[petemillis]

Jim, we know that the majority of kids who are abused are abused by people close to them. Of course that is an uncomfortable fact. But does that make it so wrong to WANT to chip away at the problem where we can. I said before (or it might be in the other thread) that I accept that images like this don't cause people to be paedophiles. But if images like this of children, who have a right to believe their parents are looking after them and protecting them and their rights to privacy, are deemed to be acceptable, then will it, or will it not open the door for the production of more such images? If there is a more free market, through the fact that we have suddenly decided these images are acceptable, then is it not a fact that if people can make money from them, if "artists" can sell them, then there is the potential of children being exploited for the production of these images? If it's suddenly ok then there is a legal opportunity for irresponsible or desperate parents to see their kids as money making machines - "hello artist - give me 50 quid and you can photograph my little Chardonnay doing naked gymnastics". So you all seem to be saying this is ok - if the photographer is an artist, if nobody is sexually assaulting the kid, if the picture is considered as "art", then is can be published, printed, sold and absolutely nobody is harmed in the process. After all, how can the kid be harmed - nobody touched her, she's only 5 so of course she doesn't sexualise her gymnastics, her parents gave their consent, so it's all above board and legal. Harmless.

 

Would Chardonnay have been exploited? Of course - using her to make money or to make an artistic statement without any consideration of her rights. They could make the 50 quid by shoving her up a chimney to sweep it instead.

[mvisionphotography]

JOHN ~ " The same applies to people who think of children as consenting sexual partners. We don't put them down, which may be a mistake, but we do try to control them for the rest of their lives as there is no cure."

 

I know I have said that this perversion is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Ok, but I am a bit confused as to why you would say and put down the words put them down.

 

POW

 

Compare with putting them down like a dog.

 

Ok, maybe I am ignorant. I'm sure some of you would agree. But all of us, including me as I am no saint, have some perversion to us. Some deep dark secret that we all have to hide somewhere in our past present or future.

 

We start pointing the finger like that and say PUT "THEM" down for even "thinking" of children as a sexual partner then by GOD I think the show oh what's it called DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES should now be the catalist for having all housewives to be PUT DOWN because you have just put "us" in the category to lust after our gardners (hubba hubba). Those 16 year old bodies out there in the grass (hubba hubba). No disrespect to gardners out there intended.

 

Think about it. That sentense is a bit over the top don't you think? "put them down".

 

How can we put people down for just THINKING a thought?

 

That is like putting that dog down for barking at the neighbor.

 

Is this where I get to go ARGHHH again.

 

I think John you meant to make a point but kind of screwed it up. Sorry, I don't think we need to put ANY person down or even in jail, hell I don't think we even need to slap someones hand for watching a TV show about that.

[petemillis]

Micki, I do a lot of gardening work for people. If they want to lust after me then that's no problem - I mean, as an adult, of 40, I'd be flattered :)

[beeman458]

"That person you create is typically known as a straw man, because he never really existed."

 

No straw man here as (based upon your writings) the person I describe, actually exists.

 

Sadly, I see these non-existent straw people daily, as they deny their very existence. These are the same people who cut you off on the road, are quick to flip you off as they, in the same breath tell you what wonderful people they are. There's no entertainment to the exercise, as there's no exercise.

 

"...it's an exercise in futility."

 

Yes, very non-absolute of you. :) Me, I see the interchange in a different light, one of transparency; pull the covers of the wolf and let the sheep's clothing fall where it may. Your writings are not that of the innocent; no hidden agenda or motivation.

 

Compromise (diplomacy) requires two willing parties; not writing that we're negotiating. Sans a willingness of "compromise" a deal "can't" be hammered out. Your writing clearly display an unwillingness to compromise to any ideologies which aren't of your own and they also display an unwillingness to share ideologies on a central stage.

 

Ideology: no naked pictures, period.

 

Compromise: naked pics of consenting adults, including porn but "no" public (museum or otherwise) display of porn.

 

Ideology: No naked pics of children, period.

 

Compromise: non-suggestive pics (and yes, we all know what are considered suggestive pics, except, of course, those who are pretenders) allowed for family album consumption, but not for general public display; hiding behind the veil (skirt, like a child) of legitimacy provided by museums.

 

As an adult, one must learn (or be taught; willing vs unwilling) that compromise (considering the sensibilities of others) is a necessary part of civilized behavior. All or nothing is not a compromise as we can't expect to get everything; either which way.

 

One needs to challenge this need to continually and aggressively violate the innocents of children (enough is enough), as clearly this need to constantly visit and revisit this behavior (desensitization), belies intentions. It's not being done out of innocents as it's clearly being done for the benefit of the slippery slope crowd of what else can we get away with; spoiled child syndrome; it's all about me. This is a fact you and others need to get a grip on, not I, as championing a child's right to innocents (the weak and vulnerable who can't protect themselves) is good, not bad and nowhere is it considered the right of others to violate a child's innocents.

[sitemistic]

"But if images like this of children, who have a right to believe their parents are looking

after them and protecting them and their rights to privacy, are deemed to be acceptable,

then will it, or will it not open the door for the production of more such images?"

<p>

You're asking if publishing any images of naked children is a slippery slope to a constant

flood of images of naked kids to satisfy the lust of millions of adults? Tell me, when you

look at photos of naked children, what is your reaction? Are you repulsed? Sexually

stimulated?

<p>My point is that relatively few people have any reaction at all to photos of naked kids

(unless, obviously from this thread, it is to think that they are being exploited). So, how

big a market do you think there really is for photos of naked children? I'm not talking

about photos of kids having sex...I think we can agree that's over the line. I'm talking

about, for example, teenage girls as Sturges portrays them.

<p>I think your argument is something of a straw man.

[beeman458]

"...to lust after our gardners (hubba hubba)."

 

That would be me, but with a capital "G", as my desperate housewife (my wife) can legally lust after me all day long. I think you mean "gardeners." :)

 

Sorry, resembling that remark, I couldn't resist. :)

[mike dixon]

<i>No straw man here as (based upon your writings) the person I describe, actually exists. </i><P>

That "person" exists only in your mind, Thomas (in good company with your versions of "intellectuals," "academia," and a wide assortment of other windmills at which you're constantly tilting). I am amazed at Fred's patience and civility in response to your persistent distortions of (and outright fabrications about) what he has said.

[Norma Desmond]

Thomas,

 

While you've been so busy creating me in your image, we've actually agreed/compromised

on several key points. You've unfortunately missed them because you're onto your next

fiction before you ever actually consider what I've said.

 

We've agreed and compromised on the fact that The Commandments get twisted to suit

agendas. That would be on both sides of the religious and political spectrum and I'm sure

we could have fun listing together all the ways it's done.

 

I thought I was compromising and meeting you half way when I stated that both

simplifying and complicating could be obfuscating, but you never responded to that one.

Hmmm.

 

We agreed that tv news is problematic and I'm sure we could have a field day going

through examples of CNN's bias and Fox News's bias.

 

My suggestion that education does, in fact, have bias attached, was a reaching out to

discussion about its possible shortcomings even though I believe in its benefits. You didn't

respond to this notion either.

 

We reached common ground on the futility of therapy for whackos.

 

Sadly, once I realized that you missed all those golden opportunities, I felt it futile to go

on. I don't know what's absolute about a feeling of futility.

[petemillis]

Jim: "Tell me, when you look at photos of naked children, what is your reaction? Are you repulsed? Sexually stimulated?

 

My point is that relatively few people have any reaction at all to photos of naked kids (unless, obviously from this thread, it is to think that they are being exploited). So, how big a market do you think there really is for photos of naked children?

 

Jim, I'm certainly not repulsed, and I'm certainly not sexually stimulated, in most cases I would just see kids, but in some cases I am pretty horrified that some images are seen as acceptable.

 

How do you know relatively few people are sexually stimulated by this sort of imagery? What research can you point me to that shows this? How few is relatively few? Less than half a percent of the adult population? Less than 5 percent? Even half of one percent is a huge number - that would be something like 100,000 UK males adults. If it's seen as ok to publish pictures of girls like the "Klara and Edda" one, then I'd say there could be a fair size market - maybe not as a proportion of the population - half a percent sounds small - but rather as a real number.

[Norma Desmond]

Mike-- Thanks!