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

[beeman458]

"That "person" exists only in your mind,..."

 

The person is real enough, based upon what he wrote as Fred chose to freely respond to my comments and artists tout free thought for it's revealing nature.

 

You can't have free thought if you overtly set about to shut it up and if you don't respond, then you won't reveal yourself; a two way street.

 

I won't argue your point that you find my comments "tilting" in nature as there's no point in trying to sway your thinking. And by definition, a crazy doesn't know they're crazy, so maybe Don Q is a distant cousin of mine or yours. It does me no harm for others to find my thinking in conflict with theirs, nor for others to see my philosophy in a tilting nature (challenging) as the harm is created when others make public conflict for their (your) gain at the expense of the forum. Let Fred speak for himself (respond), if he so chooses, or not and he and I, also, can have no more exchanges; his free choice.

 

Child pornography is an ideology who's genesis comes out of disrespect towards the child; caring what the person thinks of the individual. Parents of the child who create these sorts of images (borderline or otherwise), disrespect the child by taking advantage of this familia parent/child relationship because it's natural to overlook the flaws (transgressions) of a loved one, more so than that of a complete stranger. The question really is about how much disrespect are you and others willing to heap on the unsuspecting (trusting nature) child for personal self-gain in the name of art or otherwise?

 

As an adult, you and Fred..... can defend yourselves but a five or ten year old child, is not so fortunate.

[beeman458]

"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."

 

Not intentional as many points are being made and responded to.

 

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

 

Capitulation. :)

 

I do appreciate the interchange, so don't run away as challenge you I will, but at no time, in my mind, am I, in my responses, being disrespectful (lacking a caring of what your opinion of me might be) but this respect I show, won't stop me from writing my mind (conflicting or revealing inner feelings/honesty) nor would I expect your respect for me or others to stop you from sharing your internals; necessary dark thoughts, of course, being withheld. :) Honesty has a certain... shall we say, unintended abrasiveness to it.

[Norma Desmond]

I won't run away because of your challenges, I will walk away because of your lack of

respect. I find little more disrespectful than to put words into others' mouths, than not to

believe the actual words someone speaks but instead to assume you know what their

words are hiding, especially when you have no direct knoweldge of this person's actions,

behavior, history, or reality.

 

"The person is real enough, based upon what he wrote."

 

You speak truth here. Unfortunately you have not based the person on what he wrote but

on what you wanted him to write or what you think his ilk would write.

 

Thank you for acknowledging that I may choose not to have more exchanges with you. I

do so choose. I have actually so chosen in the past. I should have been more absolute

about it. See, I'm learning.

[mvisionphotography]

Skipping over the Fred and Thomas exchange. As my kids would write OMG, can you say ring around the OMG would someone just get off that ride and settle down for a moment! I agree you guys are never going to finish that one. I can't even follow what ya'll are talking about personally.

 

I will again say, on point.

 

I agree with this and this only.

 

What was said above quoating what PETE said:

 

"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."

 

The rest of what you speak? I have not a clue how, what, the way, when, or getting it all to be regulated etc...

 

(sigh)

 

Almost about ready to tell you to let it go :)

 

Go do some work in the garden (smile) yeah you PETE. You will feel better.

 

As silly as it sounds (and the only female that has been saying anything), I truly think that most of you males have been somewhat on the same page but been pointing (as I have) the finger at each other but not really hearing what the other is saying.

 

I think it is time for this forum question to end. The answer to it has been done. Now we are just getting down to name calling.

 

Now I don't think this has anything to do with philosophy of photography at all.

 

~ THANKS, micki

[sitemistic]

"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?"

 

<p>So you think a lot of people are sexually stimulated when they look at naked

children? Then we have a social problem far worse than the issue with naked kid photos.

What position does that put kids in if substantial numbers of parents are sexually

stimulated by looking at their children with no clothes on? I've seen no evidence of this

being the case, but I could be wrong. Many of these folks you say are so stimulated must

be parents of the numbers are large.

<p>Lots of kids are injured playing sports each year, but we haven't outlawed sports.

Parents make the choice to allow their children to play sports. All three of my nephews

have blown out knees from playing high school football, which their parents consented to.

Is this also child abuse?

<p>Parents routinely give permission for children to do things that are potentially harmful

to them. Where on that slippery slope do you draw the line?

[sitemistic]

"I think it is time for this forum question to end. The answer to it has been done."

 

What is the answer?

[beeman458]

"I find little more disrespectful than to put words into others' mouths, than not to believe the actual words someone speaks but instead to assume you know what their words are hiding, especially when you have no direct knoweldge of this person's actions, behavior, history, or reality."

 

Sorry to say but I have been privy to far too many people's private thoughts to see "anybody" as enigmatic. From what I have learned to be a fact about people, there is what they write and want people to know, and then there's the other side of midnight where the unspoken word resides. A person is not only what they write, but they're also what they don't write, when they can.

 

"I do so choose."

 

Sorry to read that you're taking the road of convenience (the road which serves) but I'm not surprised as that's predictably, human nature. :)

[petemillis]

Fer Fack Sake Jim, you're twisting the whole thing round - there are some things in life that are necessary or desirable or healthy as part of growing up, like taking part in active sports, like going out with friends, like having a social life, like going to school, like going on holiday. If a parent forced a child to take part in sports against their wishes then of course that would be abuse. If they want to do sports and they get injured, then it's bad luck - just one of those things.

 

But you try and tell me exactly what about having explicit photographs of your 5 year old daughter published is necessary or desirable or healthy for her development. You try and tell me that this is done for the child rather than for the ego of the "artist" and to satisfy consumers of the "artist's" work.

 

Can you really not see the difference? Can you really not see where a line could be drawn?

 

And you want figures on intrafamiliar child sex abuse?

 

Study in Finland found incest rates between father and daughter of 0.2% (that's 2 in 1000 kids), and 0.5% (5 in 1000) between step-father and daughter [ref ^ Sariola, H. & Uutela, A. (1996). The prevalence and context of incest abuse in Finland. Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 20, Issue 9, September 1996, Pages 843-850.]. But a further study said this figure should be higher as professionals failed to report 40% of cases.

 

Lowest estimates of child sexual abuse rate is 1-2% (1 to 2 out of every 100 children) [ref Kutchinsky, B. (1992). The Child Sexual Abuse Panic. Nordisk Sexologi 10 (1) 30, 1992. ], but other studies have indicated this could be much higher - mean rates of 17% for boys and 28% for girls [ref Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph. & Bauserman, R. (1998). A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Psychological Bulletin. 124(1), 22-53.]

 

So to answer your question, it would appear that a lot of people are stimulated by looking at naked children, and the problem is bigger than perhaps you realise. In the good ol' USA, the US Dept of Education found between 9 and 10% of pupils were targets of educator sexual misconduct at some time during their schooling. Would it be comforting to know that your 5 year old daughter's primary school teacher could quite legitimately have a 20x30 "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing" print on his wall at home, or maybe some pictures like this in his drawer? While we're at it, why not have the 20x30 print on the staff room wall - after all, it's only "art".

 

Again though, what these people do is beside the point - never have I said that images of naked children is a cause of paedophilia or child sexual abuse. The FACT is that publication of them is an infringement of their basic rights, and plays no positive role in their development.

 

Your comment regarding sports and other activities that provide a positive contribution to child development (unless forced upon the child by overbearing or abusive parents) is complete and utter tosh. It shows nothing but a serious lack of comprehension of the difference between decisions that can benefit the child and those that can harm/exploit/victimise/devalue the child.

 

As you said, parents "make the choice to allow their children" to take part in sports - in other words they support their children in what their children want to do. If the child didn't want to play football and "competitive dad" bullied them into it, then that is abuse. Supporting what THE CHILD WANTS to do is not abuse. If the child wants to do something dangerous like cross the main road on his own at the age of 5 to go up town and buy sweets, then a responsible parent would not allow it. If they did allow it then that would be "neglect", or "irresponsible", not "abuse".

 

BUT does a child at the age of 5 or 10 or 14 say "Mummy, please can I have a naked picture of me showing my nonny taken and published by this well respected artist?". And even if the child did, do you really think any responsible parent would support her in that choice - "yes, of course dear, that would be lovely!". Any image like this that is published as a piece of art is instigate without the child's informed consent, does not consider the privacy of the child, is not something the child has asked to have done, is not necessary for healthy development. As I said, it's done purely for the ego of the "artist" and to satisfy consumers of the "artist's" work.

[petemillis]

Jim, do you have kids? Or are you just Uncle Jim? If you're Uncle Jim then why don't you point your brother or sister to this thread and ask them for their thoughts on it. If you have kids, how would you feel about pictures showing all their pride and glory at say 5, 10 or 14 years old being published in the name of "art" and possibly hung on their teacher's wall? Ask your brother or sister if they would think it's cool and trendy and so very good in the name of "art".

[petemillis]

Actually Uncle Jim, how about showing an uneditted version of the "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing" picture to your young niece if you have one, and ask her if she would like to star in a picture like that. Then arrange it with Nan. I'm sure she'd love to, and of course your brother or sister wouldn't mind as it's harmless.

[beeman458]

"Lots of kids are injured playing sports each year, but we haven't outlawed sports."

 

Funny, but many school districts "are" banning competitive contact sports:)

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-26-recess-bans_x.htm

 

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Schools+banning+contact+sports&btnG=Google+Search

 

Not such a far fetch idea anymore by some educators, educated opinion. :)

[petemillis]

Thomas, that really shows how screwed up things are - legitimise dodgy pictures of kids and stop them playing! What a heap of bollocks.

[beeman458]

"...that really shows how screwed up things are - legitimise dodgy pictures of kids and stop them playing!"

 

Yes it does. :)

[mvisionphotography]

Hmmm here is something to really think about. There are 52 registered (only registered mind you) sex offenders in my little town I live in. That means my ZIP CODE only. That zip code has one High School. That is about as big as the football Varsity and JV Team.

 

Just thought I would say hmmm.

 

Has nothing really to do with much of anything. Just how screwed up EVERYTHING IS!

 

Pete, your beating a dead horse. :(

 

I'm with you. (sigh) I don't think it's about the silly games the kids play.

 

Next time I go to my kids schools I'll make sure I actually LOOK at what pictures are on the walls. I'll make a mental note of it. You really have me doing lots of thinking here. That is good.

[mike dixon]

<i>Sorry to say but I have been privy to far too many people's private thoughts to see "anybody" as enigmatic. From what I have learned to be a fact about people, there is what they write and want people to know, and then there's the other side of midnight where the unspoken word resides. </i><P>

 

No matter how confident you are that you know what people <b>really</b> mean, this forum is for a discussion of what people actually say. If you want to generate both sides of the conversation (and claim that one side is what someone else really meant), you can start your own blog.

[jtk]

Miki: "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."

 

No, I didn't "screw it up." You chose to misread.

 

You may not think it necessary to put "ANY person down or even in jail" but the population at large disagrees with you.

 

If you meant to limit your thought "only" to child molestation, you may want to remember that molestation is enough to convert manslaughter to first degree murder in most states, authorizing death penalty. You may not think that "necessary," but it's law.

 

If you bobbled it and meant your whole point to refer to pervs watching TV, you will recall that ownership of that material is enough

for conviction and jail in all of the US right now, it's a Federal offense...case right now in Nevada, getting lots of Yahoo headlines...

 

Granted, there are some organizations populated with perfectly nice perverts that disagree with the larger population, actually advocating and facilitating sex with children, but their lives are limited severely.

[cj_bas]

Pornography7, if that was its intent, remains pornography6 throughout its life.

 

However, there is a huge difference between pornography and abuse. The first does not require a living person at all, the second does require a victim.

 

Is Donatello's David - reputed to be a 15 year old Leonardo da Vinci - pornographis? Maybe. It is abuse? That's a different matter altogether.

 

Nowadays it is possible to produce an image that appears to be photographic reality that is not. But drawing, painting, etching, etc., have always been within the artist's reach and whether an acutal person posed - or if they were truly naked when they posed - is impossible to know.

 

Shoulde someone be imprisoned for drawing a picture of a naked child from their imagination? Absolutely not. No mater how pornographic it may be. The courts in the United States have ruled in agreement with me.

[bobtodrick]

I know this is a very sticky situation we have here, but I have a couple of stories to relate, one of which is personal.

 

A few years ago I was approached by a young woman who wanted to model for a series I was working on. She was not quite of the age of consent. Thing is she seemed very ernest and brought both her parents by who were sympathetic to her wishes to model and who were both willing to sign consent forms in her behalf.

 

The image is here (and it is not pornographic) http://www.artists-society.ab.ca/artists/default.aspx?id=1868&parentID=2232

 

I checked with a lawyer versed in this area and his advice was as follows. I could photograph her but NOT show the photographs until she turned of age (16 where I am). As well the photos could never be used for anything but in conjuction with the art project they were intended for...specifically they could never be used in a commercial aspect.

 

Now this was all 10 years ago. Today I would hesitate to take on the commission at all...even in 10 years it has become increasingly risky to make photographs like this, even when completely legitimate.

 

My other story involves Toronto, a large Canadian city where a young child (about 2 years old) was taken from her parents and not returned for 2 months. The reason being that an over-zealous photofinishing staff person took issue with the photo of the father blowing kissing his daughters tummy after her bath (photo taken by mom). The image (which was 'clean' enough to be shown in a newspaper) showed the dad was kissing in the area of the childs navel and that the genitals were not at all in the photo.

 

Yet it was enough, as I mentioned that the child was removed from the home for 2 months while case was investigated...with complete exoneration. This was in 2006.

[emre]

<blockquote>

Shoulde someone be imprisoned for drawing a picture of a naked child from their imagination? Absolutely not. No mater how pornographic it may be. The courts in the United States have ruled in agreement with me.

</blockquote>

For the UN perspective, check out <A href="http://www.hri.ca/fortherecordCanada/vol_app/app4/OPCRC.htm">article 2c of the OPCRC</a> (note the wording: "any representation, by any means").

[daniel_smith6]

"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?"

 

So the drawing of a picture is OK? How about if you create it in Illustrator or Photoshop, as a 'photograph', with all the sharpness, texture and detail that is possible when using the program to its potential? If you are good you can create a 'photograph' from the imagination and few could tell it was not reality without the original digital files and/or history.

 

If the 'child model' doesn't really exist is it child porn?

[petemillis]

"If the 'child model' doesn't really exist is it child porn?"

 

It's still a depiction of a child - so I'd say yes. In same way I could produce pictures glamourising the use of Blacks as slaves, or glamourising the killing of Jews, or glamourising the beating of gays. All of these could be done with no photographs of real people so people would argue they are victimless pictures. BUT it is the message they give that would be considered wrong.

[rmdavis]

Scrolled through the Kerstens stuff provided by the link. A lot of those photos are fantastic- exceedingly Vermeer like. But a few of them cross a line, I think. When compared with the underage model from Alberta, there is a large measure of eroticism present in some of Kerstens images. Particularly the head on "pimp" photo with the makeup. It's not directly sexually suggestive (at least to me, but then again, I'm not into kids); but it is definitely making use of the elements of sexual provocation found in advertising or pornography. It would certainly be stimulating to a pedophile.

 

Not that this is, in of itself, reason to reject it. We can't judge everything we do by whether or not it negates pedophilic standards, or relates to certain perverts at all. Some folks may have ridiculous fetishes involving shoes and bananas. I'm not therefore a perv if I wear shoes while eating a banana.

 

That being said, I can't help but suspect that there is an unhealthy relationship here. And, if the photos were released for publication before the model came of age and consented to it (and I think this addresses the heart of Emre's question), then it is definitely exploitation. Can you photograph your kids without clothes on? Sure. should every individual have a right to control the level of privacy with which they lived their life? Yes.

 

I personally don't give a damn if my mom posts the picture from the 70's where I'm nekkid on a bear rug, or whatever. And I wouldn't mind even if cheescake shots of me had been taken- because I don't care much about my image or people's perception of me. Frankly, I'm far too lazy to care.

 

But what if I had turned out to be the kind of midwestern corn-fed conservative that we all can't stand here? The ones who don't like public nudity, even when it is art? Do they get to be autonomous individuals as well, or just footstools for the cultural elite?

 

The point is that children don't know yet, with the clarity of judgment that comes from maturity, who they are or what they will become. That's why we don't let them make life altering decisions or indergo stresses that take enormous amounts of maturity to deal with.

 

That's why they can't vote, drink, sign binding contracts, and be drafted into the army and forced to suffer and inflict violence. because they can't fashion informed consent, and they are not prepared to accept and deal with consequences.

 

Now, a photo like Kersten's which is borderline (thanks Eugene, I've been to the Rijksmuseum, and I stil think some of those photos are borderline)and isn't clear cut kiddie porn could be shown, ethically, if the model, as an adult, gave informed consent to it. Because the Adult is then determining the level of openness, in terms of privacy, that they have to the world.

 

Then again, Kerstens is clearly a European. And all Europeans are Pervs. It's a known fact. Praga Khan is from Europe. Ergo.