Thank you all for turning this into a lively discussion even if the title of the thread was a bit dodgy.
It seems that it gets down to definitions. What is art? What is porn? What is sexually normal?
Does the display of such material in public debase the subject of the photo? Does the possibility of viewing it attract paedophiles? (Australian spelling).
Most interesting thank you!
Pav - Really? Nudity? Just the absence of clothing? Same with pictures of adults? Mere nudity suggests sex to you?
How about a painting? And so photographs a painter might take for reference? Okay to use a reference photo for apples and flowers, but not for humans? Because that would be pornographic?
Law is the law of man, though. To some extent, we were responsible for the decision.
I naturally would have refused. Actually, like I said, in Ohio, I wouldn’t have to worry about it because it would never happen due to being illegal anyway. Anyway, I don’t think I would have protested against it or anything, as long as it is not forced on me, then I’m more or less happy. I’m pretty much just speaking generally in this thread.
The context of the other culture is different, within that culture. The point is when you are taking imagery from that culture and showing it to this culture, then why should the imagery not be censored in accordance to the standards of this culture? If they are adamantly against clothes to the extent that I had to get naked to even be over there, then naked I would get. When in Rome.
It is difficult to reach a consensus. Like you said, though, pedophilia is abhorrent, so why would I even want to throw the pedophiles a bone here?
Anyway, I’m one of the people where I like to seperate the discussion from my personal feelings, to an extent. Obviously, my side of the argument is reflective of my personal feelings, but that is no reason of course for me not to attempt a reasoned argument. Also, I like to be argued against, if I don’t examine the other side of the argument, how can I really know that my side is actually my side?
That’s just that one particular law. Obsecene material involving a child is a First-Degree felony in this State. I used that law because it most closely represented what is specifically being discussed here.
If the photo gets viewed by a pedophile, then the subject of the photo is debased. If the photo is not viewed by a pedophile, then the subject is not debased.
The point is, the subject could be debased. Oh yeah, and people might see a picture of a celebrity and decide that they want to stalk this celebrity. There was some guy that went around hotels taking pictures with his cell phone of an ESPN sportscaster when she was naked, apparently the guy seemed completely normal prior to doing this.
She wasn’t even at all attractive, imo.
Anyway, if we accept that a pedophile is pretty much already fucked-up, then you’re just asking for a whole can of worms to be busted open here.
Absolutely. I mean, not sex, necessarily. The point is that it could suggest sex to someone.
I don’t see why it is absolutely necessary that anyone be painted in the nude in the first place. Actually, I don’t really see why it is necessary that apples or flowers be painted.
Even so, if you are going to allow photographs to be used as a reference, then why not actual people?
In any case, such a photo is not necessarily pornographic, may not even be designed (and is probably not designed) to be pornographic, but it could become pornographic when taken out of context. A pedophile’s mind is pretty much out of context.
So could the Washington Monument.
Good point.
Well, sometimes it’s difficult to get a model to sit still. Or expensive. Apples are easier and cheaper, but we’ve already ruled them out.
We’re back to those farm animals, again.
What kind of photographs should we be able to see in art galleries and museums? You know, that won’t make deviants think…deviant thoughts.
So could a tomato. I should have been more specific, I’m talking about liklihood, here. In fact, what is more likely to get a pedophile going, a picture of a naked girl, or a picture of a naked adult?
I don’t want to be misunderstood, here, because I do not condone sex offenses of any kind. The difference is an adult at least has some reasonable chance of protecting themselves, whereas a child probably does not.
Thanks.
What I was getting at is what would it matter at that point? I mean, if we are going to let people use these photographs for, “Artistic purposes,” then I suppose every pedophile can just go out, get some paint and an easel, and claim to be an artist if they want to. Then, nobody can really say anything about possessing the pictures or having naked kids run around.
Intelligent people generally want to avoid going to jail, unless they are going to jail for something that they want to do badly enough to risk going to jail for it. That’s what makes possession of nudity child-oriented material a pretty good identifier for picking out pedophiles, because very few intelligent people (though I am sure there are a couple) would risk being incarcerated for that in the name of art.
Again, it is not all deviants I am concerned with, because adults can protect themselves. If some guy wants to get off to a scripted video of rape and snuff where the woman’s vagina is blown out all to Hell by a full two-liter bottle of Sprite shoved up there during a process of being pounded anally and sucking two dicks at once, then go for it. If everyone is consenting, and has the ability to consent, fuck it.
I’m not watching, but I’m not going to say nobody else can’t or shouldn’t.
So, a picture depicting violence would be okay, as long as it depicts violence against adults. So we could see Holocaust pictures of adults, but not of children, right? Because a violent deviant would be encouraged to commit violence upon seeing such pctures, but that would be okay, as long as it’s just adults being depicted.
How about those pictures of naked corpses in the Nazi death camps? Necrophiliacs - I mean, can we see the ones of adult corpses but not the children?
There’s still something of a separation here as it relates to probabilties. Obviously, I don’t have the exact numbers or anything, but if you were to take the number of registered sex offenders and compare it against the number of murderers that there are, I’m sure the number of the former would be much greater.
For me, the point is to take preventive action wherever preventive action can be taken and doesn’t really put the populus, as a whole, out too much. We can take preventive action against pedophilies or potential pedophiles, and I fail to see where very many people are irreperably harmed by such undertakings. Once again, it is also a matter of necessity. This material is not necessary, or even if it is a necessity (which it isn’t) I would still argue that protecting children through whatever means are both possible and reasonable is a greater necessity.
I’m not saying because there are murderers out there that we should not take steps to prevent violent deviants from doing whatever they are going to do. We definitely should, but the stuff that you are bringing up is history. Even if you are talking about violence in Entertainment (which I watch) I will agree with you when you point out such violence is not necessary.
However, there is not a law concerning no violence in Entertainment. As a society, apparently we have not decided that violence in Entertainment poses such a threat as to warrant banning. Of course, I do believe that graphic violence against children for the purpose of Entertainment is something of a taboo.
I think this is relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHVJcSwdHNc&feature=related#t=1m15s
I see his point here and I agree to great extent.
It’s legal for parents to photograph/video their baby, or their 3 year old naked. Is this not okay?
This is where I have always differed from consequentialism. Even if we can never know another person’s motivations for acting, I still think they are morally significant.
Interestingly, it is a current issue that kids can now send nude/sexy pictures of themselves via cell-phone picture messages. It’s called “sexting.” In some cases kids have been charged with child pornography and been put on sex-offender registry for sharing such photos (usually charges have fallen on a boy who has shared a photo, sent to him by a girl, with other classmates). Here the photos certainly are sexual in nature, but are they child pornography?
So, basically you are asking if a child can be said to possess child pornography?
I would say yes, but would point out that it is unfair for such a person to be tried as an adult in the case. It would be fair then, that the person be dropped off of the sex offender list whenever they turn 18.
That’s how it usually works when a minor commits a crime, they turn eighteen and it is a clean slate. Usually, they’ll only be tried for violent crimes as an adult, and then that sticks on their record.
So if this kid was sixteen, it’s okay that the entire neighborhood view this kid as a sex offender for two years, for texting a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend?
That would be okay if it was your kid? Even if the boy was your kid and all he did was receive the photo text?
Some states limit where a sex offender can live. So what would you do? You’d move, with your sixteen year old. Over a text pic.
The number of sex offenders is defined by the law - but the law includes such cases. In some states, it includes cases of statutory rape between people who subsequently got married. They are lumped in with true sexual predators. But I guess every law is a good law, or so you seem to be saying.
So, how would you protect the neighbors from your own son, in a scenario such as I describe? Keep the kid inside all the time? Or would it be better to incarcerate your son, just in case?
Pav - you seem to be saying that right and wrong is defined by whatever the law is at the time. What about the notion that it could work the other way 'round? That laws should be informed by justice, and not that justice be informed by law?
If you are 16 and you want to send nude photos to people you are an idiot, but not idiot enough to go to jail, just naive and easily lead.
Art/porn, tomato, tomato eye of the beholder I think. Art is about artists egos generally. Look at me aren’t I provocative! Congratulate me, encourage me by banning me! I’m so underground and subversive but I just want to be loved from the underground, by the in crowd. Knock yourself out mate, I don’t have to like it but I wont buy it either.
I know the thrust of concern about this topic is primarily moral, but the title of this thread is “art or porn?” and–forgive me if I’ve missed anything–no one seems to have seriously considered that porn is art.
Part of the problem seems to be that in general definitions are mostly descriptions of abstract categories that we made up in the first place. Art. Porn. What if some of your art turns out to be porn and some of your porn turns out to be art (by definition!)? Are your definitions confused or are you? What’s the point in trying to separate the two–as if art should not be associated with anything as vile as porn?
I’m not sure the categories art and porn can be completely isolated because I strongly think that it’s all part of a broader spectrum where art and porn rub shoulders and one bleeds into the other.
Well if that was a picture of some young girl say from a country and or village where people walked around mostly naked… and was displayed as such…I wonder if in that same exhibition hall in Australia there would be any one offended by it?..
All those images shown of naked tribes people from all over the world in the National Georaphic Magazine… are those just Documentry, Art, Porn,?.. or is it that just because its in that particular book its all well accepted?.. Well at least its been… since around 1950 something in the N.G. magazine …anyway… So maybe its time people begin to accept “Nude Art” .
In the West nudity is most certainly taboo except amongst rebellious nudists, and that’s why there are so many collections of art that explore it. There would be no need for it if we all didn’t secretly think being nude was kinda fun if not socially acceptable, thus internet porn behind closed doors and nudist camps, where you can indulge your natural instincts and the shame value society places on us is redundant. I blame religion but then Christianity is evil. 
The entire neighbourhood would view such a person as a sex offender much longer than that, but the person would only actually be a sex offender for two years.
Actually, sixteen is the legal age of consent in Ohio, so the only person getting in trouble would be the boyfriend if he ran around showing the pictures to people.
Emotional appeal? You’re better than that! I’m just kidding, like I said, sixteen is the legal age of consent here already. I’d be pretty pissed if my kid ran around showing nudies of his girlfriend to people, though.
I don’t think they place those same limitations exactly on a minor, because a minor is legally a dependent who cannot really choose where he lives. Besides, I think they let them stay in school. At least, they can, it’s up to the school whether or not they want to expel.
I’m not saying every law is a good law, I’m saying every law is just a law. Breaking the law has consequences. As far as statutory rape is concerned with people who got married, in my personal opinion, it would probably be fair to drop the sex offender tag after they got married. That’s not the way it works, but I wouldn’t really have a problem with it.
Whatever the law decides to do with him is what the law decides to do with him. I would certainly represent him in the case, but I wouldn’t throw money at a lawyer for something that is his fault. I’d probably strive to get him a plea deal by which he would get house arrest with work/school privileges. I’m a big softie like that.
That’s not what I’m saying, exactly. I’m just saying that it is right to abide by the law. I’m not saying the laws themselves are all right.
Well, I have lost track of your position, then. You are basing it entirely on the law? So, if it was legal to exhibit the picture in question, then it’s okay to do so? The court did not find that the law had been broken in the Australia case. Which must mean that you are in favor of the exhibit.
Except you said you aren’t.
Please clarify.
Like I said, I’m not saying that the laws themselves are right.
In other words, I think it should be a law that this type of exhibit not take place. Again, in Ohio, that would be a Felony of the Second Degree.