Business
12,357 discussions
103,804 replies
Photos & Photographers
19,723 discussions
92,293 replies
Technique
4,558 discussions
34,276 replies
Equipment
8,909 discussions, 1 new
63,135 replies, 5 new
photoSIG Talk
7,221 discussions
80,485 replies
User News/Ads
1,718 discussions
21,616 replies
photoSIG News
484 discussions
5,406 replies
photoSIG Cafe
4,101 discussions, 2 new
57,211 replies, 9 new
Critic's Corner
1,327 discussions
16,794 replies
Start a new discussion
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)  
on December 18, 2005 5:16:32 PM CST
This lovely innocent photo has again given rise to the debate about should a photo such as this be posted to the internet because pedophiles may be aroused by it. If this is the argument then no photos of children should be publicized because pedophiles are attracted to children whether they are clothed or not. A pedophile could just as easily be aroused by this beautiful photo of a clothed child that no one made comment on its suitablity to be posted on the internet.
There is a growing body of evidence that correlates the viewing porn and erotica to rapists. Yet I have never seen a comment on any porn/erotic photo that suggests these photos should not be on photoSIG because a rapist might get off on them.
Some people can make anything evil and ugly, I prefer not give in to them.
Read 116,523 times
Reply
|
From rmullns/Robert (3,078)
on December 18, 2005 5:34:33 PM CST
why keep the argument going? Sick bastards don't care what you or I think . . . they will act on there impulses anyway . . . we must protect and educate our children . . . I'm on your side Sheena
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 5:38:41 PM CST
I'm not debating this with the "sick bastards". I'm discussing it with our community. I'm on your side too.
Reply
|
|
|
From ssampson/Steve (431)
on December 18, 2005 7:04:38 PM CST
She looks old enough to be embarrassed if she new she was on the Internet, where all her friends can then make fun of her in Kindergarten class :-)
The other point, is that I wouldn't post pictures of my neice or nephew, as that is something parents should control.
Reply
|
|
|
From markj913/Mark (8,415)
on December 19, 2005 8:24:01 AM CST
For all we know, the photographer has already gotten permission from the parents.
Reply
|
|
|
From tfbncc/Raymond (255)
on December 18, 2005 7:08:01 PM CST
I would not worry about the so called "perverts" that may or may not see this image. A larger worry is wether the photograph violates the "child anti-pornography" laws in the various states. Legal entities such as governments and courts don't take much time to assess wether a photograph has artistic merit or not. If it's a nude or semi-nude image of an underage person, it breaks the law according to them. If any of you are familiar with the images of Jock Sturges, you also probably know that he was involved in a long legal battle over just this subject. He took images of adolescents living in a nudist setting in France. He is well known there, the children and parents all gave full consent. The images themselves are innocent in content. But the government didn't care. They raided his house, confiscated all his equipment and negatives, and brought him up on charges. It's been awhile since I have visited his website, and I don't recall all the details. But the scary part is that even the most innocent of images such as this beautiful child can be mis-construed by our so called "well meaning" elected officials and the photographer and whatever venue he chooses to display the image can be in a pile of legal trouble without even knowing it.
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 18, 2005 8:11:28 PM CST
Yes, that would be my concern too. We can't (and shouldn't try to) police how someone might view an image, but the legal risks these days of even the most innocent of photographs is too great.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 18, 2005 7:09:49 PM CST
This is a very sensitive topic. And I am not suggesting sensorship of nude photos, regardless of how respectful the photograph is. But, when it comes to children, I feel nude children photography should not be acceptible. Children are vulnerable to the world around them. They don't understand the nature of people and their intent. Whereas, adults should have the experience and insight, where they can choose whether or not they want to be photographed in the nude. In addition, adults can better defend/protect themselves.
I am for protecting children from nude photography, regardless of how respectful the photograph is. Again, a child doesn't know better, but the adults do. Children can be manipulated to do things they shouldn't do or don't want to do easier than adults, simply because they lack the experience and understanding of rules that society abides by.
These are my beliefs, my wife's beliefs, and all of my friends' and family's beliefs. While my family, friends and I don't make up the majority of the world, there are countless agencies that advocate against nude child photography. Periodically, I hear/see on the NEWS where people are arrested for downloading photographs of nude children. I have never seen these photos, so I can't say whether the photos were taken respectfully or not. So if the police are going after these people for downloading nude child photos, then perhaps it's because society, as a whole, feel this is inappropriate conduct on behalf of the adults viewing as well as the adults photographing the children in the nude.
Maybe I am wrong. But, I don't feel wrong when it comes to protecting children from this type of activity.
Reply
|
|
|
From bobwshull/Bob (6,256)
on December 18, 2005 8:16:25 PM CST
I believe his comment was I am for protecting children from nude photography
I think the proactive approach is not allowing an outlet for displaying such photography.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted194386/deleted (53,406)
on December 18, 2005 8:51:21 PM CST
All this photo shows are her breasts...and she don't have any yet. It could very well be a boy. Theres lots of pics here on psig of kids running naked...in Brazil, Malasia, almost every 3rd world country. Nobody bats an eye cause thats how it is there.
To quantify the thought behind the "hide your shame" ideology is certainly gonna bring religion into play. Consider the movie "The Bounty", how the innocence was infected of people that were no more than what a human is supposed to be, natural. If this entire world lived in a paradise like Tahiti walking around naked i really doubt there would be pedos and perverts in this world.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 18, 2005 9:29:17 PM CST
Who cares if the child is a boy or a girl. The child doesn't know better, and probably did not have any say in having her/his photograph displayed for the world to see, let alone having any say in having his/her photograph taken, regardless of how tackful/tackless it appears. And what's religion have to do with it? I never brought it up.
And your right, in other countries this may be an accepted practice. However, I was brought up where we don't photograph children in the nude then display them for the world. As I indicated in my first post, this is my beliefs. I am not saying my way is the right way. But, I feel children should be kept out of the nude photography arena until they are old enough and coherent enough to decdie whether they want to expose themselves to the world.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted194386/deleted (53,406)
on December 18, 2005 9:51:54 PM CST
Phil u are talking about concious choices and about photography. As photographers is it our role to document life on earth or our role to only take slices based on our own moralality and instill that on others?
How are we ever going to deplict a truthful representation of life on the planet and appease everybodys vision of how this world should be? We have a similar child running no shirt burning in napalm all over the media yet no disscussions centered around her nudity.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 18, 2005 10:12:38 PM CST
...yet no disscussions centered around her nudity.
Your right. IMO, that was wrong to post that image across the media. They should have blurred her body out.
Reply
|
|
|
From ssampson/Steve (431)
on December 18, 2005 9:26:56 PM CST
How does posting a photo of a nude child exploit them?
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 18, 2005 9:35:42 PM CST
Did the child fully understand the intent that his/her nude body will be on display for the world to see. Did he/she agree to this?
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 18, 2005 9:59:18 PM CST
I'm stretching? LOL! :-D Ok, I'm gonna stop here. But can you post the photos of your nude children?
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 10:05:09 PM CST
No I can't they're prints in their photo albums. But stop by for coffee and I would be happy to show you them.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 18, 2005 10:13:45 PM CST
LMAOL! Isn't there something called a scanner. Scan them in, woman! Then post them on the web. My wife and I won't be able to make up there until May.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 10:19:17 PM CST
Don't have a scanner. Anyways, my posting or not posting photographs here on photoSIG is not the issue we were dicussing. But nice side step there Phil. LMAOL! to you too :-)
Reply
|
|
|
From daveo/David (2,659)
on December 21, 2005 12:22:33 AM CST
I think Phil has a valid point but what he really is trying to say, I think, is that it is down to the individuals morallity as too whether or not a nude photography of a child is acceptable. I for one must take his side. I too agree that it is an adults responsibility to protect their children from outside dangers, what's to say that someone who knows or recognises this child might not do her harm? By placing her in this situation are we not denighing her that protection? OK, it may be a long shot that this situation could arise but the possibility is still there, would we allow our kids to stand in the middle of the road and hope no-one would hit them? It's a topic that really has no right or wrong answer and it would be really nice for everyone to be able to walk around naked, go out and leave their doors open and generally live an idillic life, however the world is not like that and we have to pay the price for it.
By the way, as a piece of photographic art this is a very well executed image.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 18, 2005 9:33:19 PM CST
Did the child fully understand the intent of his/her nude body being photographed? Did he/she agree to being photographed in the nude, let alone being plastered all over the Internet to be viewed?
Reply
|
|
|
From lighttec/Bryan (5,607)
on December 18, 2005 8:10:49 PM CST
I am not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination. I know that laws differ from country to country. In the United States, they vary from state to state. However, I have read several articles about child pornography here in the U.S. Depending on the state, I belive this could be considered child pornagraphy, no matter what the intent is.
This is a very sensitive topic, no question. I am not for censorship. I am for good judgement. Where do you draw the line though? Even with the best of intentions, I do not think that a girl of that age should be shown on any public web site without a top. I have no problem with nudity. If you look at my critiques you will see I have no problem at all with it. However, if I was running a public web site, I would be very cautious about showing any minor without clothing.
bryan
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 8:14:35 PM CST
You're not a legal expert yet you are suggesting this is child pornography. This is not child pornography, not even close.
Reply
|
|
|
From lighttec/Bryan (5,607)
on December 18, 2005 8:39:24 PM CST
No No No I did not say that it was. Sheena, you mis-read what I said. I said that in some states here in the US it COULD be treated that way. I have seen more than one case in the paper over the last couple of years where family members have got in trouble for taking innocent pictures of their family. I wish I had saved some of those articles.
My final statment was that if I ran a site, I would not let any minor be exposed. It would be a CYA thing.
Reply
|
|
|
From buddhacan/David (1,463)
on December 19, 2005 10:27:20 AM CST
Jock Sturges and Sally Mann have both run afoul of US authorities for the photographs of nude children.
The questions of pornography are really morality questions, and so can only be answered properly in local jurisdictions.
What's okay in California, Paris, Amsterdam, may not be okay in Texas, Saudi Arabia, and the Vatican (at least publicly).
Since the internet and PhotoSIG has no physical or polictical boundaries, saying that this IS or IS NOT child pornography is made on the assumption that a)our jurisdiction is the only one whose opinion or legal status matters, b) other jurisdictions should all think like us, c) legal or moral questions have absolute and universal answers (in this case at least). I think all of those assumptions are wrong and wrong headed. Its not a simplistic question, as few things in art are, and almost nothing in morality is.
I'm on the side of allowing these photographs, and most other contoversial art to be shown and let the public decide. Then again, the public has been shown to be wrong many, many times, 1930's Germany springs to mind.
Reply
|
|
|
From bobwshull/Bob (6,256)
on December 18, 2005 8:12:54 PM CST
Regardless of how innocent or artistic this photograph may be, as a father of two young girls, I find it to be very disturbing. I would never photograph or allow my children to be photographed this way. I feel as a parent it is my job to protect my children rather than exploit them, regardless of the motive.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 8:16:52 PM CST
What's wrong with a nude photo of a child? I don't understand what you are protecting them from. I have taken nude photos of my children, what should they have been protected from?
Reply
|
|
|
From bobwshull/Bob (6,256)
on December 18, 2005 8:23:07 PM CST
Being exploited in the name of art.
I wonder how this little girl will feel about this photo when she is old enough to make decisions herself.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 8:26:49 PM CST
My sons laugh and find the photos of themselves naked to be charming, as do I the photos my parents took of me nude. I really don't see how the girl in that photo is being any more exploited if she had a bikini top on. What's the difference?
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 18, 2005 8:42:37 PM CST
ive got pictures of myself when i was little and running around naked, i think they are pretty funny actually. i submitted one of myself naked for my senior baby picture, they made me turn in another though. I mean how about photos where a woman and her baby are photographed nude? are those pornographic? What we are talkig about here is shelting our children and our lives because of a few sickos. Media has us so convinced that every next person is going to gun us down or murder our children that we have started to lock ourselves in from the real world. If you travel in europe at public pools and beaches little kids run around naked or with underpants, rarely did i see a small girl who had a bikini top or one peice on like you would see so much here in the US.
take a look at this interview with jock sturges
interview
and his gallery
Gallery
id be interested in what you think after you look at those links.
Brendan
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 18, 2005 9:16:10 PM CST
what exactly do you find so disturbing about that?
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted89135/deleted (2,345)
on December 18, 2005 9:12:42 PM CST
"id be interested in what you think after you look at those links" I think I'm glad he doesn't know me or my children.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 9:26:03 PM CST
Suzi, he took those photos with the parents permission, it's not like he is going to come and surprise you lol
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 19, 2005 1:30:59 AM CST
i cant possibly see what you find so disturbing about them! in alot of them its children with their parents and grandparents. these people have no shame or stigma attached to being nude. thats just they way they spend their summer, personnaly i think its great. now since they choose to spend their summers like that should photographs be outlawed because suddenly if you take a picture of it it becomes taboo??! take any one of those photos and add clothing and they would still be beautiful pictures, just as innocent either way in my opinion.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted89135/deleted (2,345)
on December 19, 2005 3:44:48 PM CST
Brendan I never said I find them disturbing. I have pictures of my children in the bathtub etc, although I was careful not to show any genitalia, it does show in one photo. I however would not place them online. I also wouldn't place a photo of my 5 year old with my bra on over his shirt (which I also have) online or in a frame in my home. I love these photos however my children were def too young to consent and I would never disrespect them by having out something that they could be "teased" for, whether it be the gentle loving ribbing of uncle or the out and out teasing of that one snotty cousin most people have. I also find my nude photos of my children wonderful the way most moms do but I don't care whether anyone else does or not as it wasn't taken for others eyes.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted173363/deleted (1,429)
on December 28, 2005 9:11:23 PM CST
I like this from Jock Sturges interview: "Western civilization insists on these concrete demarcations. Before 18, physically you don't exist; after 18, you exist like crazy." " The truth is that from birth on we are, to one extent or another, a fairly sensual species." Children are aware of their sexuality. From an early age children know what they are comfortable with, have the ability to express their opinions and know what their limits are. Certain behaviors are strongly inate.
Reply
|
|
|
From steveinvictoria/Steve (1,158)
on December 18, 2005 8:31:00 PM CST
The child in the image isn't old enough to make the decision as to whether it should be posted on-line for the entire world to see. Therefore, the decision must be made by her parents. They can face the music from her when she's older, and decides that they made a bad decision, and resents that this photo is stored in God only knows what collections...
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 8:37:51 PM CST
If the photo is stored in any "God only knows what collections" it's stored there with a lot of photos of children with their clothes on. There is no guarantee any photo of a child doesn't end up in "God only knows what collections". Are you suggesting that no photos of children should be published? How about this nude photo?
Reply
|
|
|
From steveinvictoria/Steve (1,158)
on December 18, 2005 8:53:30 PM CST
"Are you suggesting that no photos of children should be published?"
Not at all -- my point is simply that the parents must make the decision as to whether it is published or not. The child in the image that led to all this, is too young to make the decision. If someone else posted this picture without the parents permission, they were out of line.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 9:10:59 PM CST
Well instead of speculating about it assuming something negative about the photographer one should email the photographer and ask them.
Reply
|
|
|
From steveinvictoria/Steve (1,158)
on December 18, 2005 9:22:46 PM CST
I wasn't assuming anything. I was making a very simple point. It is morally wrong and probably illegal to publish photos of naked or near naked adolescent children without their parents permission.
Reply
|
|
|
From buffburd/Kyle (224)
on December 18, 2005 9:48:46 PM CST
Guilty until proven innocent, eh Steve? What country are you from, not the US I hope?
Reply
|
|
|
From deconut/Rich (10,170)
on December 18, 2005 8:46:18 PM CST
Geez - according to some people here, anyone who ever took a snapshot of their kid in the bathtub should be jailed.
Look, for the United States anyway, here's the bottom line from the law books:
"A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive".
I don't find the picture regarded to be sexually suggestive in any way. Period. I'm not saying I would be comfortable putting my daughter on display - but that's a parent's decision. In this case, I'm glad they did. It is just simply a beautiful picture of a child. Nothing more.
The following is the complete United States statute regarding child pornography:Child Porn Law
Reply
|
|
|
From steveinvictoria/Steve (1,158)
on December 18, 2005 9:01:01 PM CST
"according to some people here, anyone who ever took a snapshot of their kid in the bathtub should be jailed"
Rich, Over the years, I can recall reading a number of articles where precisely this has happened. Dad takes some shots of the kids in the tub, and takes the film into the local jiffy-mart where employees are required to call the police if any photos show up of naked children. The police see the photos, the childen are removed, and the parents required to prove that they are responsible.
It's not right, but it happens from time to time.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 9:31:34 PM CST
And in my research into this there has always been some mitigating factor beyond the photographs such as accusations of neglect or abuse, custody issues. I've never seen it documented where a candid photo taken by parents of their nude child was the sole cause of their incarceration.
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 19, 2005 4:03:50 AM CST
It has happened in the UK, Sheena. There was a case involving a female TV presenter some years back. She took in a roll of film of family snapshots, including one of her three year old daughter in the bath. The lab called the police and she was arrested. She was later released without charge, but that must have been a pretty unpleasant experience to go through.
I think you underestimate the level of paranoia on this topic. I don't even take street candids of fully-clothed kids these days.
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 19, 2005 6:22:28 AM CST
It is. But I suspect that knowing paranoia is the reason for your arrest is of limited comfort.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 19, 2005 6:27:42 AM CST
And I believe based on my conversations with law enforcement that the number of people genuinely arrested for the simple act of photographing their own children nude in a candid situation is pretty small. It's like the whole paranoia of "stranger danger" and children, it exists, but the people families should really be scared of is people they know. The whole issue is based on little fact and lots of emotion and scaremongering. Makes me crazy.
Reply
|
|
|
From bobwshull/Bob (6,256)
on December 18, 2005 8:33:38 PM CST
I really don't see how the girl in that photo is being any more exploited if she had a bikini top on. What's the difference?
The fact that her nipples are exposed is a big difference.
What's wrong with a nude photo of a child?
Where does one draw the line and who make the determination between art and pornography?
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 9:24:50 PM CST
Wrong link sorry. Here are some.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=342172&forward=browse
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=720002&forward=browse
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=495019&forward=browse
Reply
|
|
|
From buffburd/Kyle (224)
on December 18, 2005 10:10:25 PM CST
"The fact that her nipples are exposed is a big difference."
Bob, is it really that big of a difference? Its all skin, perhaps our definition of "naked" and "exposed" is outdated.
Think about it for a second, certain parts of our bodies are culturally not allowed to be shown in public. If they are shown there is a big reaction and someone will try to help cover them up. Think wardrobe malfunction...
Is there any real reason why women should not be able to walk around topless? Imagine if men's nipples were treated in the same way, if you think about it for a moment you realize how silly that would be, and how silly it is that we treat women this way.
Isn't the real reason why we want everyone covered up just because we're ashamed of how we feel about these parts? Perhaps those who are so vehemently opposed to seeing minors portrayed unclothed in art or family photos (regardless of parental permission) are the ones who have the inappropriate thoughts about the said minors. They only mention the minors inability to give permission as a socially viable excuse for their own perversity.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 10:23:10 PM CST
Is there any real reason why women should not be able to walk around topless?
There isn't, and that's why in large parts of the world it's legal and perfectly acceptable. Even here in Canada :-)
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted.107821/deleted (687)
on December 19, 2005 2:47:10 AM CST
"There isn't, and that's why in large parts of the world it's legal and perfectly acceptable. Even here in Canada :-) " ANd what part of Canada might this be ? Is that where Sheena lives ?
Reply
|
|
|
From mlesosky/Maia (63)
on December 21, 2005 12:48:50 PM CST
Guelph, Ontario, it is legal for women to walk around public areas topless. Not many do so, but still, it's legal.
Reply
|
|
|
From fgworton/Glenn (8,537)
on February 11, 2006 3:53:32 PM CST
If this was an image of a boy - would this discussion be here ? -
Reply
|
|
|
From bobwshull/Bob (6,256)
on December 18, 2005 8:38:02 PM CST
Where would your opinion stand if she were teen and had breast forming?
The fact that she is pre adolescent really has no bearing and is no different in my opinion.
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 18, 2005 9:09:54 PM CST
so its ok to take a picture of a nude baby? correct? i would assume you wouldnt think this is porn http://dahlborg.blogs.com/baby_2005/images/bath1.jpg , right?
so at what age does it become not alright to take a naked picture. then i assume that you think its perfectly alright to look at a girl naked who just turned 18 1 minute ago? because one minute ago she didnt have breasts or pubic hair or anything remotly sexuall about her? if you were ina country wher it was ok to take pictures nude when people are say 16 or 17 then would you think its alright or no? I mean why are we so scared that a adolescent child might show any sign of sexuality? Kids are trying things like oral sex in elementry school, am i saying thats alright no, but im saying that obviously even as children we are sexuall beings.
Reply
|
|
|
From erinlyn80/Erinlyn (0)
on December 18, 2005 9:23:11 PM CST
Good for you for starting this discussion. Seeing the photo of this child personally made me feel uneasy due to the fact it was on the internet and I wouldnt want my daughter (if I had one) photographed this way. Im not even sure why it makes me feel uneasy...perhaps because shes posed and not just playing in a sprinkler and happens to be topless? I don't know but definetely uneasy about it.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 9:27:03 PM CST
She doesn't at all look posed to me. I think people are inserting their own issues into it.
Reply
|
|
|
From ssampson/Steve (431)
on December 18, 2005 9:39:37 PM CST
If you like it so much, then why all the hand waving? It's a done deal, forget about it. If her parents like it like you say they do, screw the rest of us, who cares.
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 18, 2005 10:00:03 PM CST
Sheena
The way I look at it is would you like someone to show a photo of you without your top on the internet,you have the right and choice to say yes or no,it's up to you.
Did this child make that choice,I doubt it,She should have the same rights as you and everyone else. IF people want to take photos of their children like this for their scrapebook thats OK
But to put a photo of her without her top on the internet is wrong of her parents.
Wait tell shes older and let her make up her own mind what kind of photos of herself she wants on the internet.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 10:07:19 PM CST
So it's ok for her not to make the choice as long as she has a bikini top on?
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 18, 2005 10:48:24 PM CST
Naked or not I have the right to show what I want to show on the internet,and so do you,how come I never seen any naked photos of you on the internet sheena.
I guess it's because you have the right not to show yourself off on the internet.And IMHO everyone should have that right
Her parents should not take away her rights
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 11:26:20 PM CST
So you're saying then that there should be no photos of anyone on the internet without the subject's permission, clothed or not?
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 19, 2005 12:26:16 AM CST
IMO there is a big difference in showing a photo of kids on the internet with or without clothes on
In your opinion if you don't see any difference,then that's your opinion and I respect it.
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 18, 2005 10:14:01 PM CST
Maybe it makes you feel uneasy because this child didn't have the right to say no I don't want a photo of me without my top on the internet.
Her parents have that right,but she don't.
I'm sure this photo is very innocent,but IMO if you want to put photos of children on the internet they should be dressed
Reply
|
|
|
From bigfrog/Ben (54)
on December 18, 2005 10:35:46 PM CST
I would suggest that everyone participating in this discussion look up the work of Sally Mann, a fantastic and very well known photographer. Her images have stirred controversy, yet most would agree that her photos are definately art and not something sick and twisted.
http://www.art-forum.org/z_Mann/gallery.htm
These photos are certainly more suggestive than the one photo we are talking about. Yet they ARE art. Very good art.
So where is this imaginary line that we shouldnt cross?
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 18, 2005 10:55:33 PM CST
I'm not saying this photo is something sick and twisted at all,like I said I'm sure it's very innocent
All I'm saying Let her be old enough to make up her own mind if she wants to show herself on the internet without a top on
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 18, 2005 11:04:22 PM CST
Her images have stirred controversy
Ok, since her images have stirred up controversy, then what you are indicating is that there are those who feel it should not have been posted. I'm just curious, did these children consent to being exposed like this, or did their parents do the consenting for them? In her photos, it appears that these children were not happy. Is that because they were forced to have their photos taken?
Yet they ARE art. Very good art.
Art is what each individual interprets art to be. I said that instead of the repeated cliche, "art is subjective." But there I said it anyway. Got a different cliche, "one person's master piece is someone else's crap." :-\
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 18, 2005 10:48:15 PM CST
Sry to say sheena, but I feel there is a difference between naked children and clothed children. My parents also have photos of me when I was a baby that I laugh at when I see, but I would go nuts if they ever posted them on a photo site. The photo you kept linking of the baby in the arms is naked, but you can't see her SO CALLED private parts. Yes nipples are just a piece of skin, but they also have been used as a sexual object for many many years. Personally I don't critique any nude art so maybe my opinion is biased. I personally believe there is a difference between a sweet child naked and a sweet child clothed. I also think there is a difference between a young girl like the one you posted naked and one of a baby being held (that wasn't seen exposed). I consider the photo you are talking about to be pretty close to child pornography in my opinion. I think if the family wants to keep it as a cute shot then fine, but something like that does not need to be posted on internet sites. Just my thoughts.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 11:23:11 PM CST
Yes nipples are just a piece of skin, but they also have been used as a sexual object for many many years.
In five year olds?
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 18, 2005 11:45:29 PM CST
well in the states most times yes that would be considered child porn, sad to say but not everyone is as liberal as you (that was not an attack at you by the way, I am very serious when I say it is sad that people aren't as liberal as you in their thinking.)
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 18, 2005 11:02:11 PM CST
one question i have for you sheena b/c I have read the comments on the photo. If someone feels the photo is worth a 3td b/c it if offensive what right do you have in deleting their critique. 3td is left for photos that are truly offensive to people, and if someone is offended and says why in a critique what right do you have in removing it.
I will also say I didn't read the critiques from people since they obvioulsy were deleted so I can't defend them 100%, but by the way it sounds you are deleting critiques that disagree with the photos content. Am I correct in that thought? B/c if you did delete their critiques what gives you the right to remove their opinion on a photo that they may truly find offensive?
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 18, 2005 11:29:46 PM CST
I have the obligation to keep our users to the TOS they agreed to, and that is why some people have their critiques removed on occasion. You are quite incorrect, naive, and insulting to presume I remove critiques simply because I disagree with them. If that were truly the case there would be a lot of critiques gone from this site.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 18, 2005 11:42:57 PM CST
naive, and insulting to presume I remove critiques simply because I disagree with them
first of all i take offense to you calling me naive since I did ask you if I was correct or not.. I didn't judge you or say you take away critiques that you disagree with, just asked you if my assumption was true or not. You have your opinion I have mine. But I don't think you should delete a critique if someone truly finds it offensive.
Reply
|
|
|
From erikanu/Ercan (714)
on December 18, 2005 11:58:11 PM CST
this photo looks kind'a child pornography to me. I am not gonna vote for it.
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 19, 2005 12:16:25 AM CST
I don't think this is child pornography at all,there is nothing about this photo to indicate that at all
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted212664/deleted (13,805)
on December 19, 2005 12:07:39 AM CST
My response when I clicked the thumbnail of the controversial photograph was one of slight concern, and I did not ctritique it because, although the girl was photographed well and her face was sweet, I didn't feel entirely comfortable about the fact that she was so briefly clothed. I have heaps and heaps of photos of my 2 children running around naked as toddlers but they remain in the family collection and would never, never ever be posted on the internet on any site. I agree with those who have expressed concern regarding the child's rights, and in consideration of the issue of paedophilia I would feel it better to err on the side of caution.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 19, 2005 12:12:22 AM CST
If one is concerned about child's rights, not a single photo of a child should be posted to the internet. If one is to err on the side of caution, no one's photo should be on the internet.
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 19, 2005 12:43:31 AM CST
http://urbansemiotic.com/2005/07/13/take-your-children-offline-now
Reply
|
|
|
From mrchevy/Ken (5,673)
on December 19, 2005 1:22:46 AM CST
I think so too. Glad to see you are taking a firm stand on the subject using facts instead of emotions. Keep it up.
Reply
|
|
|
From mrchevy/Ken (5,673)
on December 19, 2005 1:14:13 AM CST
I think you are pissing against the wind Sheena. There is NO way you are going to convince people to change their thinking who think a naked shot of a baby to a 10 or 12 year old girl (ie when they finally reach puberty) without a top on isn't porn.
To me, they are just naked, and some of the shots are pretty cute, but there sure isn't anything sexual about them.
And while my kids (the youngest is 34 now) lived under MY roof, I made the decisions. When they moved out on their own, then they could make the decisions.
People whining about "oh, she doesn't know how bad it is to be photographed naked".
I think if you (whomever you may be) look at a photo of a 5 year old without a top on and feel "uneasy" or that you think you are looking at a porn shot, then you are pretty f***ed up in the head.
Naked by itself sure isn't porn. It is just naked.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 19, 2005 1:25:47 AM CST
funny how people get personal and hostile when people don't agree with their view point.
I am f***ed up in the head ken in my own way, not b/c I think it is a little odd to post a young girl naked (her top off) on the internet. Naked itself is not porn, but that photo is risky... AND YOU KNOW WHAT, I WILL NOT CALL YOU F***ED IN THE HEAD FOR THINKING THAT PHOTO IS OK.
You know what else is interesting ken, there is no way I could convice you that the photo is crossing the line b/c you are just as thick headed as the people who think it has crossed the line (like me). Don't call people fucked up b/c they disagree with your view. Would I consider this porn, NO I wouldn't, but I feel the photo took a little step over the line, but I guess that makes me f***ed up in your eyes.
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 19, 2005 1:59:22 AM CST
hmm, im gonna kinda goa different direction than both of you and say what is so wrong with sexual, does sexual have to have a bad conotation.
definition :Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions.
what is so wrong wtih a children having a sexual quality to them? are world is based around sex, the difference between sexes, and love. we are born because of sex, children seek nurturing from a mother, they need milk from a mothers breast, these are all sexuall things but dont get hit with the same taboo as a photograph of a naked child. are you saying that a 16 or 17 year old girl cannot exhibit a sense of sexuality? Girls grow into women thats just they way it is they dont suddenly wake up on their 18th birthday and say hey, todays a good day to become a sexuall being. i keep saying girl only because it seems the taboo is associated much more strongly with girls instead of boys. I mean dont you think that its crazy that the average age which people lose their virginity is 14-15 yet the age of consent is between 16-18 in the US? that means that a majority of people betwen 14 and 16 are fellons, doesnt that seema bit crazy? shouldnt we be educating children at the right age if they are doing it anyway, isnt that better than ending up with 15 y/o girls who are pregnant because they didnt know how to use a condom cause no one ever showed them? i guess im going off ona tangent but my point is our entire perception of age and sexuality is so backwards its almost insane.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 19, 2005 2:04:42 AM CST
what does that have to do with someone posting of photo of a half naked girl? I think it is wrong, others think it is ok. I accept their point of view, but I guess they consider me f***ed up b/c I think it has crossed the line.
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 19, 2005 2:00:08 AM CST
the forum bully showed up
I never said that it was porn either,the last thing that you said was,It is just naked,But who should have the right to show a photo of someone that's undressed.
I say nobody but that person,and if that person is not old enough to decide for them self,then nobody has the right to decide for them.
and I think it's a poor argument to compare this photo of a young girl without her top on to newborn babies photos
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted212664/deleted (13,805)
on December 19, 2005 2:51:35 AM CST
Ken, I am also NOT fucked in the head. I am a 48 year old, liberal mother. The thing to keep in my mind here, is that SOME people ARE fucked in the head, and find partly clad little ones sexually exciting. To me, they are just naked and to you, and also to Nigel, and most likely everyone discussing this issue. The bloody valid point Nigel and I were trying to get across is that there are plenty of people who get their rocks off looking at photos of toddlers, girls of 5, boys naked, etc. etc. I didn't think the photo was sexual at all, but I sure as hell would not have a photo of my daughter or son, at ANY age posted naked or near naked!! Firstsly out of regard for their rights, and secondly so some fucked up person doesn't sit there at his/her computer screen, saving the image, posting it elsewhere, etc. etc. So, consider yourself owing some people on this thread a darn apology for taking what we said, and being so rude.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 19, 2005 6:14:19 AM CST
The thing to keep in my mind here, is that SOME people ARE fucked in the head, and find partly clad little ones sexually exciting.
And that is my whole point Donne, one that I made in my initial post and one that you and others ignored. These "people who get their rocks off " also find totally clothed childred sexually exciting but we still post those to the internet. You are kidding yourself if they think this photo is any less sexually attractive to pediphiles than a little girl fully clothed. If you are going to fall prey to paranoia at least be consistent and recommend people don't post any photos of their children on the internet.
Reply
|
|
|
From accorddude/Nicholas (203)
on December 19, 2005 2:23:15 AM CST
You know I think that you took an excellent photograph. I think that if we had a perfect world where being naked was not construed as a highley sexual activity that their would be no problem with your photo what so ever. I could care none the less if the child was clothed or not I think that if their was a consenting agreement between you the child and her parents and that the photo was taken with out the intent of being erotic that the photography and the intent of the artist and the subject and her parents was perfectley fine. But the crule fact is that their are people out in the world that are giong to take advantage of this little girls innocence. Their are perves out their. And our government sees it necessary to take action for those whos rights might other wise be violated. In this case the government sees that the rights of the child may be violated so the government advocates for them. I would defentley check to see that this is a legal image for you to post because of the laws about nude photography that exist this photography could very well get you into some major legal issues. And the state in no way will side with you. The state will be their to protect the girl in the photograph. NO questions asked the government will say that you did something wrong. That you deserve jail time. And quite frankley in many instances I will have to side with the law. In this case It seems to me that you did not think a thing about it. My advise is to take the picture down becasue if I were you I would fear legal action. It may be censorship by the government but in this case their are better ways to fight said censorship. Think of your young neice again before you take a picture like this and post it on the internet.
Reply
|
|
|
From et3ss/George (54,525)
on December 19, 2005 3:44:28 AM CST
Would have to throw myself with the group in that I personally did not think it was appropriate to show this shot on the internet. Personally I post shots of my grandkids and daughter, but also try to post shots that are respectful and not demeaning of them since I'm making the decision on her behalf. Have taken wonderful shots of her being silly while taking a bath, but that is a shot for the family and once she becomes an adult, it will be her decision on whether it is torn up or kept. In certain parts of the world, children do run around naked, but there are a lot of places, where you would not allow a child to run around in public undressed and that is the difference for me on clothed and unclothed shots of kids. The perverts are always going to be around, whether there are naked shots or not. It comes down to respect for my daughter not to put her in a situation that she may become uncomfortable with or ashamed of later when she becomes an adult. Just because I'm a father, it does not mean I've got sole rights to her life...I'm not perfect, so I'll err on the side of caution.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 19, 2005 6:51:48 AM CST
I guess it depends on how you raise your kids. Some people raise them to be ashamed or uncomfortable of their bodies, and some people don't. I respect your right not to post photos if it bothers you, I just expect reasonable people to extend those same rights to other people too.
Reply
|
|
|
From ianj49/Ian (843)
on December 19, 2005 8:53:41 AM CST
In the law in the UK, the issue hinges around the abilty of the child to give "informed consent" - that is to understand what is happening - in this case a picture of them unclothed, being displayed to the world, and to be able to consent with reasonable understanding of what that consent may involve - that is many other people of varying degrees of sanity being able view the image. I would contend that a child of the age in the photo could well understand the former but not the latter and therefore sad though it makes me to fall on the side of the censorship brigade I don't think this image should be shown.
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 19, 2005 1:00:20 PM CST
Which law is that, Ian? I know of no legislation that requires the consent (informed or otherwise) of the subject of a photograph posted on a gallery or critique website.
For usages where consent is required (eg. advertising), it is granted by the parent or guardian of a subject under 18 years of age, so the issue of the child's ability to understand the implications would not arise there either.
Reply
|
|
|
From ianj49/Ian (843)
on December 19, 2005 3:50:46 PM CST
The body of law relating to Child Protection takes it's whole stance from the premise of informed consent. Whilst it is certainly true that a parent or guardian can give consent when it is judged that the child cannot (e.g. vaccination for a baby) it is certainly not true that there is a step change at age 18 - in many cases the child CAN withold consent if it is judged that they are "Gillick Competant" (after the famous (or infamous) Victoria Gillick) when they are below that age, so I think it is very shaky ground to assume that picture that could be considered erotic, were it an adult subject, is automatically not erotic and that the parent or guardian has absolute right over it's display.
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 19, 2005 4:10:25 PM CST
We're not talking about child protection, we're talking about the right to display a photo on a critique site. No consent is required from anyone.
Reply
|
|
|
From ianj49/Ian (843)
on December 20, 2005 4:08:10 AM CST
Sorry, but I just think you are wrong - displaying inages which could be construed in various lights is a potential matter of child protection - UK law is quite clear on this, the interests of the child override all others. Consent is clearly required, in this case the consent is, at the very least, implied, presumably from the parents - I wonder if the chlid was included in that discussion ?
Please note that I am not implying that there is anything wrong with this photo, but it is a very fine line between the acceptable and the problematic.
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 20, 2005 5:28:51 AM CST
UK law is quite clear on this
Can you cite the relevant section of the Act? If you're right, we live in an even more paranoid society than I feared.
Reply
|
|
|
From ianj49/Ian (843)
on December 20, 2005 6:25:43 AM CST
Part of the preamble from the 1989 Children Act
# the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration
# children should be kept informed about what happens to them, and should participate when decisions are made about their future
Personally I don't think this is paraniod - just sensible - it basically says that the child's views and wishes must be taken into consideration, and if there is a conflict then the child's welfare takes precedence.
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 20, 2005 6:47:34 AM CST
Preamble is not part of the law, it is merely the explanatory text prefacing the actual law created by the Act.
If this is what you are referring to, I think you're very much mistaken about the law here.
Reply
|
|
|
From ianj49/Ian (843)
on December 20, 2005 7:15:35 AM CST
Ben - You are wrong - however I think we are starting to get into the realms of how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin! For reasons of privacy & security I cannot give you full details, however my knowledge comes from my partner who is a forensic psychiatrist of national repute dealing with young people and is the named doctor for child protection in an area of the UK.
Cheers Ian
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 20, 2005 7:33:11 AM CST
Individual cases would be private, but the law is entirely public. We'll just have to agree to disagree about this one.
Reply
|
|
|
From ianj49/Ian (843)
on December 20, 2005 8:17:40 AM CST
If only all disagreements were sorted out so amicably :-) - I'll stick to critiquing photos in future
Reply
|
|
|
From et3ss/George (54,525)
on December 19, 2005 10:21:51 AM CST
Sheena, for me it's not about how the kids are raised. It's about protecting them until such time they are able to make an informed decision and are able to take the consequences for their actions. We're their guardians during this time and as such, should protect them from doing things they may regret or that may hurt them. Would also not post a photo of my kids or grandkids doing something that could exposed them to being ridiculed even if they were clothed. They cannot give consent and as such, should be protected. In a perfect society this would not be an issue, but in this society (US), a child of this age could not walk in public in the nude, no matter what my thoughts/beliefs are and this being a public forum, we should abide those dictates until the child can decide for themselves on what is right or wrong.
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 19, 2005 11:01:54 AM CST
so are you saying that only if a child is nude do they have to give consent? if the child is clothed do they have to give consent? their are thousands of pictures on this site where no consent was given because they are taken in public. second, how many 1st graders are searching photosig for pictures of their naked schoolmates? who regrets a photo of themselves naked when they are 3 years old? i mean i dont look back on the pictures of myself and say "omg mom, why did you ever take these degrading photos of me naked, i want all copies destroyed!" and how bou t at the beach, you have never seen a little kid running around naked or little girls with no tops? i would say its less comon here but people sure dont seem to make a fuss about it. not like i ever saw someone walk up to a parent at the beach and ask them to cloth their child.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 19, 2005 11:22:15 AM CST
As much as I want to avoid this forum, you are missing his point. Naked and clothed is different in societies eyes whether you think so or not. It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, but what the law states. Last time I checked we live in a democracy, and the majority of people feel nipples is nudity, and most people Would not post a photo of their neice or daughter naked. It is a good photo, I don't believe the photographer put it up there for predators, but for crying out loud, Not everyone is as opened minded as the artistic community.
This has been edited for sheena b/c she thought I was yelling.
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 19, 2005 12:25:36 PM CST
it isn't shouting sheena.. not everyone uses the caps to yell. I believe caps is used to make certain words stand out. Would you like me to change it to bold or italics so people don't get offended by thinking I am shouting on a forum?
I would consider this shouting.. LOOK AT ME I AM NOW SHOUTING!!!!!!!!
Just some humour...
Reply
|
|
|
From et3ss/George (54,525)
on December 19, 2005 11:43:38 AM CST
Brendan, what I'm saying is that I will not post a shot of a child that could open them to ridicule or embarassment whether clothed or unclothed. There is a big difference between having shots of your kids nude/ semi nude, and posting them on web for anyone to see. Some things are meant to be private until all parties agree that they should become public and kids cannot make an inform decision on making a nude/semi nude shot public. While some adults would not mind if their childhood shots were made public, the same could be said that there are adults who would mind if their childhood photos were made public, so as a parent it would seem to me that it would be prudent to let them make that decision instead of me since I'm a temporary guardian. The same can be said for the shots where our kids mug for the camera and do silly things...they're private until decided otherwise. I would not post any shot that I would not have hanging on my wall or one that I would show their boyfriend/girlfriend when they're in high school. It's about respect for me.
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 19, 2005 2:00:15 PM CST
ok george, im just curious then, what do you think of work that sally mann or jock sturges has done? are you saying that in the context of our society (US) that its not alright, but somewhere else it might be fine? I mean jock sturges was raided by the fbi and had all his work and equipment taken, later he was either found not guilty or the case was dismissed and all of his stuff was returned. like i said, you can go to any book store and purchase his book, obviously its not considered child pornography by authorities if its still for sale, correct? personally i would say that everyone here should take a look at his work cause, only because iwould be shocked if you could come away from it thinking that what hes doing is in anyway exploiting anyone.
Reply
|
|
|
From et3ss/George (54,525)
on December 19, 2005 4:18:24 PM CST
Brendan, personally did not care for nor would I post work like Mann or Sturges, due to the reasons given above. Am not saying that they are exploiting the child because I do not know the motives of their shot. Anthony himself has said that he had no intention of exploiting his neice. I just view my job as teaching them to become an adult so that they can make decisions for themselves. I would not allow my children to have a piercing or tattoos for the very same reason. Everyone has different ideas about what is correct and this is a good thing because it forces people to think, but when it comes to my children, do not want to anything questionable until they can think about it and make a decision about it themselves and accept the consequences...good or bad.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 19, 2005 4:30:57 PM CST
How do your kids learn to make good decisions if they never get to make any until they are an adult?
Reply
|
|
|
From et3ss/George (54,525)
on December 19, 2005 6:25:03 PM CST
Sheena, they make small decisions every day and as they grow older the decisions become more difficult until such time that they reach 18. Hopefully, if I've done my job right, they will be able to make sound decisions or at least not make any mistakes that have any long term reprecussions.
Reply
|
|
|
From alfredky/Alfred (1,607)
on December 19, 2005 11:08:38 PM CST
After they reach 18, don't be afraid of admitting failure :) I'm talking from experience, I had four and the youngest is 36.
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 20, 2005 8:35:15 AM CST
My dad reckons the first 42 years are the worst, so things should get easier by 2012.
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 19, 2005 11:02:22 AM CST
has nothing to do with how you was raised,has nothing to do if you are raised to be ashamed or uncomfortable of their bodies or not,or sex,or if this is porn,but it has everything to do with that last sentence you wrote,(I just expect reasonable people to extend those same rights to other people too.),
You and every other adult has the right to decide if they want to expose themselves on the internet.So way do a few adults who have children think that it is their right to take that away that right from kids,does being bigger then their kids give them that right,I think it's those few who are denying to extend those same rights to other people.
Thanks
Reply
|
|
|
From michaelcastellano/Michael (71,401)
on December 19, 2005 8:45:51 AM CST
I oppose censorship of any legally obtained photograph, meaning that it was legally taken and does not depict illegal or criminal activities.
What makes this issue explosive is the often unspoken fact that children do have a continuously developing level of sexuality of their own, and are not asexual beings that suddenly turn sexual after puberty. As such they can be exploited and manipulated, and can become the targets of unscroupulous people and pedophiles.
Does this mean that some perfectly legitimate photos will wind up being missused? Of course, as would be the case with any other photo posted publicly. In realty, any photo of a child can be used sexually by someone who is so inclined.
The problem is one of education when you get right down to it. Child sexuality needs to be taken out of the closet and the kids need to get a real sex education so that they are better equiped to recognize when someone is trolling them. A kid that is educated and aware of their sexuality AND who doesn't feel ashamed of this is much more likely to tell their parents when approached or touched by a pedophile.
Sexual ignorance and repression foster molestations -- how else could all those priests have gotten away with thousands of serial molestations over all those years? It was because the kids had no ability to speak to their parents about what was going on. They felt guilty and kept quiet.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 19, 2005 3:29:02 PM CST
I am opposed to sensorship as well. But this is more about choice. Children at very young ages don't necessarily comprehend the complex thinking of adults. So, it is up to the adults (parents) to help and guide the children make decissions, as their protector/guardian.
I also agree with you with regards to educating children at a young age about human sexuality, instead of wasting time teaching them that a purple dinosaur that plays with children. Or some fat guy with a white beard wearing a red suite and hat is capable of delivering toys to everyone all over the world, in just a few hours. Reality is a better method of teaching and it would definitely help the children recognize when someone is doing something wrong to them.
But, adults disregard the children, because the adults are older and know better, so one would think. Yet, nobody asked Mikey if he wanted his photo of him in the nude, at age 8, to be posted for the world to see. So just because the child is too young to speak for him/herself, means that the adults should ignore the child's feelings about having having their photo (in the nude) posted for the world to see?
If photographing children in the nude is ok, then then why don't parents send their children to school in the nude? What is the purpose of clothing the children? Why do adults wear clothing? Most likely, the original purpose of wearing clothing was to protect the body from the harsh environments of this planet. But when we are in a warm home, school, store, job, or any structure that protects the body from the Earth's harsh environments, we don't need to wear clothing. Yet, we will be penalized for not waring clothes in public places. Just as a woman is penalized for walking around with her top off, bearing all to see, or if a woman breast feeds in public.
As adults we have the choice to do or not to do. Children, often, do not have the choice. They lack the experience to understand their choices. So photos of children in the nude, IMO, shouldn't be posted for the world to see unless the child truly understands the significance of having their photo (nude portraits) displayed for the world to see.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 19, 2005 4:07:53 PM CST
I don't know where you live but a topless woman is not punished here, nor is a breastfeeding mother. How bizarre. If you feel that a child's consent is required, then no photo of a child should ever be made public, clothed or nude, without their consent.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 19, 2005 7:59:15 PM CST
I never questioned photographing a clothed child, only the child in the nude. These are the values that I was brought up with. What can I say?
I live in NYC. If a woman is walking around in public without her top on, she will be stopped by the police. She will be issued a summons, then she will be required to cover herself. If she doesn't cover herself, the police will provide her a cover. If no cover is available, then she will be brought to a holding location, until a cover is made available. Just the same, if a man walks around in the nude, he will be subjected the same rules as the woman, except the man is allowed bear his breast. I am not saying I agree or disagree with it, I am just letting you know that this will happen in NYC. It happened this passed summer in Central Park. What can I say, I prefer women to walk around topless. :) I know, I know, now I am a shallow pig.
Maybe it's where I live, but I find it hard to believe that women can walk around topless, freely, in the public in Canada.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on December 19, 2005 8:02:54 PM CST
Women in the States get arrested for baring a breast when they breastfeed? Sorry but that is just pathetic. And don't get me started on the double standards of topless nudity.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 19, 2005 8:09:00 PM CST
I agree with you 100% regarding the retarted double standard. Women can breast feed in public, but they are required to use a small blanket over the feeding breast. Yes, it's stupid. However, I had seen women from time to time breast feeding in public and no one said anything. But there were no police around, either.
EDIT*****
Recently, (Spring/Summer) there was a protest of women walking around in the park topless. I didn't really follow the story, so, I can't tell you whether they were arrested or not.
END EDIT******
Reply
|
|
|
From bhall/Barry (2,952)
on December 20, 2005 2:38:52 AM CST
And when she contests the summons, the judge will promptly throw out the case. Public toplessness (in parks, etc.) is legal in NYC, following a 1992 NY Court of Appeals ruling. Unfortunately, as in so many other areas, the NYC cops often disregard the law.
Reply
|
|
|
From ryanmontgomery/Ryan (149)
on December 19, 2005 10:17:04 AM CST
I wonder how the child feels about having her photograph online, and how will she feel about it in 3, 5 and 10 years time. There is a very fine line between nudity and sex, but there is a line. I work with children as it's 90% of my income and over the age of 1 I won't photograph a girl topless, this is my choice and I would not try to press my views on anyone. I do think that the photo would have worked just as well cropped closer and been less of an issue. I will admit that it took guts to post.
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 19, 2005 1:04:56 PM CST
Wow! Doofus, is a term I haven't heard since the early `70s. Ya got anymore? :)
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 19, 2005 1:49:15 PM CST
hahaha! oops! i swear i looked, this thread is just getting to long. lol my bad. man "doofus" that hurt, im gonna cry myself to sleep tonight.
sorry,
Brendan
Reply
|
|
|
From phildeman/Phil (5,617)
on December 19, 2005 2:09:45 PM CST
Brendan, Why did you change your post. Now you are making Madam Sheena seem like she is schizo, as if she is talking to someone not there. There is no continuity to her post, let alone Nigel's and mine!! :)
Reply
|
|
|
From anthonyturnham/Anthony (581)
on December 19, 2005 2:25:03 PM CST
Regarding: Lost in Thought
Hi everyone,
Thank you for your all your comments. I really didn't think this photo would spark such a strong debate. I didn't post it with the intention of being controversial, and most certainly did not mean the image to be misinterpreted in the way it has. I can assure all of you that the photo was taken and posted to be appreciated for both its aesthetic merit and the look on my niece's face only.
To me the photo represents the very opposite of what so many people have been concerned about. The stare is that of childhood innocence and that is what the photo is all about; nothing more. It was taken on a hot summer day after she had been running around in garden with her sister. She had gone into the lounge to chill out and watch cartoons - that is what she is staring at. Mum, Dad, her Sister and my girlfriend were all present. The issue of PARTIAL nudity is merely incidental and I would have taken the same photo had she have been fully clothed. She was not deliberately posed, and I meant there to be no hint of sexuality in the photo. For people to read this into the photo was certainly not my intention.
I posted it merely as a portrait that captured the innocent stare of a child. With hindsight I was naive and foolish not to think that some people would read more into this photo than there is. I do regret posting it and shall withdraw it shortly. (I'm not sure if the comments will stay if I remove the photo so I just want to give people the chance to read this.)
I love my niece very much and I am deeply saddened that this photo of her may have been interpreted in this way.
Again thank you for viewing and commenting. Particularly the good people out there who saw this photo for what it truly was.
Kind regards
Anthony
Reply
|
|
|
From deleted220647/deleted (3,286)
on December 19, 2005 2:30:58 PM CST
very well said anthony! I was waiting for you to comment on the discussion. After your explanation I see no harm in the photo. I honestly thought this photo was semi-posed, but you explanation says other-wise. I would like to say I saw the photo for what it was (for the most part), but in todays society people don't always see art the way it is intended. take care.
nigel
Reply
|
|
|
From benlovejoy/Ben (8,668)
on December 19, 2005 5:09:29 PM CST
I don't see any reason to withdraw it simply because some people object. There would be little left in the world if we did that. It's a good photo, and most of us saw it for what it is.
You may want to satisfy yourself that there is no legal risk from a paranoid legislature wherever you are from, but that's a separate issue.
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 19, 2005 6:04:45 PM CST
i agree with ben, there are many photos on this site that are controversial and if anything they are good food for thought. they say alot about our society and who knows one day someone might find this post and be able to say hey look what people thought of this back then.
Brendan
Reply
|
|
|
From ceta/Ceta (236)
on December 19, 2005 9:09:25 PM CST
WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?! This nation (that being 'Murica) allows tens of thousands of children to go without enough food, decent education or reasonable access to healthcare and doesn't give so much as a second thought for doing so, but let it be thought a pedophile is jerking himself to a photo of an unclothed kid posted on a website and HOLY CHRIST, WE MUST PROTECT OUR PRECIOUS, PRECIOUS CHILDREN! A buck in a Goodwill kettle is worth more to a truly endangered child than all the sound and fury on the subject of endangered children in this forum. Also: DRAMA!
Reply
|
|
|
From ceta/Ceta (236)
on December 19, 2005 10:14:31 PM CST
Because you said this: "Some people can make anything evil and ugly, I prefer not give in to them." And it's my opinion on the matter.
Reply
|
|
|
From alfredky/Alfred (1,607)
on December 19, 2005 10:43:37 PM CST
It's amazing to me how many people object to this image and even suggest that it is pornography, only a twisted mind fed by 24 hours of bad news programs can come up with such an idea. Yes there are some sick people out there who use images of children to get sexually aroused, but a human being in there right mind should see the innocents in the child and not what some pedophile sees. In another thread I was beaten up for questioning an image of far more disturbing content and was told that art could not be censored, I find this image is far more artful than the one I was questioning. It's a sad day for a person when children pictures starting to look like pornography to him or her.
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 20, 2005 8:52:01 PM CST
It has nothing to do with pornography,sex or anything to that nature,
The pic looks very innocent to me,it's just that I(and 99.9% of the people)don't think it's right to show naked pics of children on the internet,why didn't he take one of her dressed,the photo would have been just as good,IMO if you as a adult want to show off on the interent,that's your right,but leave the kids clothes on
Reply
|
|
|
From bhall/Barry (2,952)
on December 20, 2005 2:48:23 AM CST
There are also people who are sexually aroused by photos of women in fur coats... men in leather pants... children in parkas... chimpanzees... motorcycles... tupperware... basset hounds.... If we're going to use the fear of some deviant individual, somewhere, getting off on our photos as our standard for posting on the internet, then we'll never post anything.
Reply
|
|
|
From alfredky/Alfred (1,607)
on December 20, 2005 8:40:53 AM CST
I lived in Italy for a year and always enjoyed watching American tourists looking at Michelangelos "pornography" and God forbid they also looked at all the naked statues.
Reply
|
|
|
From witchcraft/Mark (18,465)
on December 20, 2005 11:25:20 AM CST
I'm sorry was the child exploited - no the photographer states as much.
If some weirdo comes here for kicks I'm sure he could find better stuff else where, I think people are taking a far too conservative/religious view here. It is probably a culture thing as mentioned eslewhere, not an issue in California France or Western Europe, it is an issue in the mid US, and becoming so in the UK which seems to be drifting back to victorian values with our American cousins.
Reply
|
|
|
From andrewbak/Andrew (324)
on December 20, 2005 4:39:08 PM CST
Something occurs to me - it may very well be that a child could consent to being photographed, fully clothed, in what might be deemed by an average and reasonable person to be a non-sexual context - and someone may still find that to be erotic. Hell, some people might get their freak on by looking at pictures of puppies or flowers. Do we do away with puppy and flower pictures, becuase someone might read something sexual into it?
This discussion reminds me of the inkblot test. Show an inkblot to someone who has sex on the brain, and they'll see something sexual into it. Should we ban inkblots - to save ourselves from sexual predators?
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 20, 2005 9:11:26 PM CST
I think it's funny that all the people that see nothing wrong with posting pic of children without clothes on the internet keep talking about porn,sex,erotic,people with sex on their brain and so on,and so on.And the people that don't think it's right,just mostly talk about their children and other childrens rights.UPDATE this is just a statement a opinion of mine, it's not ment to be rude in any way,but If you go back a read what everyone saying it appears to me IMHO to be true.Thanks
Reply
|
|
|
From rickmoore/Rick (6,223)
on December 20, 2005 9:48:13 PM CST
So you're suggesting that people who think it's ok are degenerates, while people who don't think it's ok are pure of mind and spirit?
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 20, 2005 10:12:08 PM CST
I think that people that are against it are only because they think it's inappropriate to do so,and are not even thinking that it has anything to do with porn or sex
Reply
|
|
|
From rickmoore/Rick (6,223)
on December 20, 2005 10:53:07 PM CST
That's fine, but you really didn't answer my question. You were pretty clear in your condemnation of people who thought it was ok - "...talking about porn,sex,erotic,people with sex on their brain..." Those words look familiar? Dude, the only person whose thoughts you know is you. You don't know dick about anyone else who has voiced an opinion on this issue. So, rather than offer up anything of real value, you resort to some kind of vauge, mealy-mouthed slur of and entire group of people (whom you don't know) who have opinions (which you clearly don't understand) that differ from yours. Apparently, it's inappropriate 'just because' and it has nothing to do with sexuality. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 20, 2005 10:56:11 PM CST
why do people get rude when they are faced with the truth
Reply
|
|
|
From rickmoore/Rick (6,223)
on December 20, 2005 11:12:15 PM CST
Read back from here. The rudeness came from you. Whether you care to admit it or not, you chose to make some blatant, condemnatory, and I would say false observations about the thoughts and feelings of people you don't know, have never talked to, and obviously don't understand. So where is this truth you refer to? If something is "inappropriate," then it is so for a reason. To say that the photograph being discussed is inappropriate for reasons unrelated to sexuality seems laughable to me, yet you offer no other tangible explanation for your conclusion. If you're going to insult people, which you did, don't do it so obliquely.
Reply
|
|
|
From htx202/Rodney (4,129)
on December 20, 2005 10:03:35 PM CST
Joe, you keep speaking about the child having a right to decide, and if the child cannot decide, then the photo should not be on the internet. Specifically, why does the child have this right and what is this right? Is it a right to something or a right from something or both? Is it a right to have her privacy? Then why would she want it private? Is it a right from ridicule? Why would anyone want to ridicule her?
I think in the end, youll find that if the childs choice would be to not show the photograph, her reason would be to save herself from embarrassment or ridicule. The people who would try and embarrass or ridicule her would most likely do so because of an immaturity about sex, or because they have sexual hang-ups or perversions. People, like you, who would be concerned for her well being, would be trying to spare her from these types of people. So while you may avoid using words like sex or porn
I believe it is implicit in your line of reasoning. So I think your comparison above is not accurate. In the end, for both sides, it is all about sex. You are just not using the "S" word.
BTW, I am not trying to be rude
but who are you? You post on the forums, but you do not post or critique a single photograph. I am just wondering what the attraction of PhotoSIG is for you?
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 20, 2005 10:27:15 PM CST
I deagree it has nothing to do with sex,IMO most everyone would be against showing young children naked on the internet.If you don't believe me write to any advice columnists,they would all be against it.go on a talk show and show this picture,they would all think it was cute,untill you told them you posted it on the internet for everyone to see,then they would boo you off the stage,
Reply
|
|
|
From totit3/Jeff (309)
on December 20, 2005 11:08:50 PM CST
OK-- Tomorrows assignment: Everybody post a seminude picture of themselves when they were a child. As consenting adults we should be able to post a picture of ourselves as a seminude child!! If you don't think this is potentially embarrassing to a nonconsenting child then go ahead and post away. It shouldn't be an "embare-ass ment" for you also.
Reply
|
|
|
From rickmoore/Rick (6,223)
on December 20, 2005 11:24:26 PM CST
Sorry, man, but there are no photos of me, nude or semi-nude, as a child. We were catholics. There's a shot of my ass in my portfolio, though.
Reply
|
|
|
From htx202/Rodney (4,129)
on December 20, 2005 11:12:33 PM CST
Joe, you say it has nothing to do with sex. What does it have to do with then? Why are people against it? I do not disagree with you that there are people against it. I stated why I think people are, and you disagree. OK, what is the reason then? What is the root cause of their oposition to the posting of the photographs?
BTW, still interested in why you are here on a critique site without asking for or giving any critiques at all.
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 20, 2005 11:51:45 PM CST
Maybe I'm the only one here,but yes I can look at that pic and honestly said it has nothing to do with sex. I said what I thought was wrong with it and I"m not going to keep saying it,write to dear abby maybe she can explain it to you better then I can.Everyone has a right to their own opinion,and with that said I want to wish everyone happy holidays,Thanks
Reply
|
|
|
From yoyoguy/Brendan (398)
on December 21, 2005 12:21:54 AM CST
on an upside this could be the most interesting thread ive taken part of in a while. i think i might just go and join a religious forum just to stir up trouble. ;-).
Brendan
Reply
|
|
|
From htx202/Rodney (4,129)
on December 21, 2005 1:00:25 AM CST
LOL! Careful what you say there, they might think you are a demon-spawn. I was a hell-raiser at my church in my youth. One time I got into trouble and I thought they were taking me some place for an exorcism. Turned out it was just to the "Y" for some exercise. :)
Regards,
Rodney
Reply
|
|
|
From htx202/Rodney (4,129)
on December 21, 2005 12:50:00 AM CST
Joe, do you read other's peoples replies before you answer?
It is an innocent photo devoid of sexual connotations. We both agree on that. Some people think it is wrong to put the photo on the internet. We both agree on that.
You say it is wrong for it to be posted on the internet because the girl did not give her consent. Fine, you may very well be right. I have not said one way or the other how I feel about that issue. I am just asking why do you feel this way. You say it is not about sex...but you won't say what the reason is. You do say that you keep saying what the reason is...but that rationale is nowhere to be found in any of your remarks. Stop the condescending remarks, please. If you do not want to defend your opinions, that is fine. Just say your remarks are indefensible and be done with it.
Happy holidays to you too! Have a great New Year as well!
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 21, 2005 1:34:27 AM CST
I have been defending my opinion from the start,You have a lot of beautiful women in your portfollio,I will assume they give you their permission to post their pic on the internet,they are old enough to make up their own mind if they want other people to see them on the internet,and I have nothing against that at all.And all I have been trying to say about children is if you want to take a pic like this and keep in your family scrapbook thats great,but when it comes to putting it on the internet I believe that she should be old enough to make that decision her self, and IMO nobody should or has the right to decide that for her,We could ague about this forever,but In my mind it has nothing to do with sex,its all about how a person what's to present themself in their life,and when she gets older she may be against this, she may hate the person that put this pic of her on the internet,or maybe she will pose for playboy who knows,but why not let her decide that for herself.
Reply
|
|
|
From htx202/Rodney (4,129)
on December 21, 2005 8:38:40 AM CST
*THUNK* *THUNK* *THUNK* (ouch, that wall is hard!)
OK, Joe, never mind. We are going round and round on this. Either I am not explaining myself very well or you are missing the central point. Why would the girl care one way or the other why her photo is on the internet? Why would she be against it? What or who are you trying to protect her from? Oh well...
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 21, 2005 9:09:23 AM CST
I got the same feeling people are missing the central point here.none of those questions you ask matter,let me ask you a simple question,if I ask your wife/girlfriend or even you if I could take a photo of them/you naked and post it on the internet,what would they/you tell me(a simple yes or no will do).Thanks
Reply
|
|
|
From htx202/Rodney (4,129)
on December 21, 2005 12:43:50 PM CST
A simple yes or no doesn't work for your question. There are social ramifications with associated with nude photography. I have talked adult women out of posing for me, because they were not ready for the implications that internet exposure would bring.
To answer your question, I would have to see your work first, and you do not have any posted here on PhotoSIG. You do not have any critiques posted either that would let me know what your basic philosophies and level of knowledge are. If the photograph has artistic merit, or portrayed the lady in a glamorous manner, sure...why not? If you want one of me nude, as long as it had artistic merit, that would be fine too. You might need a wide-angle lens however (LOL!). I might also want to know where it would be posted. A critique, portfolio, or art site would not faze me at all. My S.O. on Playboy.com would be an honor. Porno sites would be out. If I had an underage daughter I would be more selective about the photography and where it was posted, if I consented at all. If she were an adult, I would try and support her decision, even if it were a style and a site I would not approve of (i.e. porno).
You've seen my work, and can read my critiques. Same question back at ya!
Reply
|
|
|
From joebuster/Joe (8,339)
on December 21, 2005 3:48:57 PM CST
You sound like a very intelligent adult who can decide and chose and conceder everything involved with putting a photo of yourself nude on the internet,like the social ramifications,moral issues,what will my friends think of this,is it possible I could regret this some day,and the list could go on and on.Now tell me do think the little girl in this photo is old enough and capable enough to make all these choices on her own,I don't think so,and the only thing I,m trying to say in this thread is that IMO the only person who can decide if it's right or wrong to have a photo of themself nude on the internet is themselves,and nobody else should be able to make that choice for them.If your asking me if I would pose nude in a photo to be put on the internet I think I would have to say no,but then again maybe nobody has made me the right offer yet.Thanks
Reply
|
|
|
From htx202/Rodney (4,129)
on February 12, 2006 1:57:26 AM CST
My standards recognize a difference between a Playboy model photographed just being nude, and a porno model being #%&$%ed by one guy while she @!@$@%ing another guy. So does most of American popular culture. But to each his own...
Reply
|
|
|
From chuckie/Chuck (4,733)
on February 7, 2006 9:17:08 PM CST
You have heard about 10 getting you 20. I personally think you are on a slippery bank once you start this type even on Photosig.
As for me NO!!!!
cHUCK
Reply
|
|
|
From michaelcastellano/Michael (71,401)
on February 8, 2006 11:16:41 AM CST
There is a growing body of evidence that correlates the viewing porn and erotica to rapists.
That's news to me, got some links? According to Kinsey, at one time or another erotica/porn has been viewed by nearly everyone in the U.S. Erotica/porn is also the busiest and most profitable business on the internet. I seriously question any methodology which purports to be able to demonstrate any connect of rape to watching erotica and rape.
Perhaps with people who specifically like to watch "rape" videos and similar violent flicks there might be a correlation, but if someone is claiming this is true in the broader sense about porn, it sounds like junk science and hogwash to me.
Reply
|
|
|
From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039)
on February 8, 2006 11:31:04 AM CST
You've misinterpreted my remarks. I am not saying that anyone who views porn/erotica is a rapist. I am saying that in almost every case rapists/sexoffenders are addicted to porn and consume large quantities of it. The same is true of pediphiles and child porn. I don't have any links handy but I'm sure if you call your local vice squad they could provide you with the actual data.
Reply
|
|
|
From michaelcastellano/Michael (71,401)
on February 8, 2006 11:55:53 AM CST
Your original and perhaps overly general formulation could easily be read as suggesting that there was a causative link between watching porn and rape. Since watching porn is so common, it's like saying there is a link between eating hamburgers and rapists.
Taking note of WHAT types of porn people watch may be more significant, as well as how often, but the mere fact that someone watches porn is not a true link to anything in particular. I've also always felt that in the majority of cases, the crime of rape is about power and control and a deep hatred of women rather than it being a crime of "passion", even though there is a crude and violent sexual component to the crime.
The enemies of sexual freedom are fond of falsely linking rape and pedophilia to porn in general as a CAUSATIVE factor, when what happens in reality is that people who are inclined to commit these sorts of crimes gravitate towards seeking out and watching porn of that nature.
Reply
|
|
|
From dejudicibus/Dario (1,770)
on February 10, 2006 2:54:05 PM CST
Well, I usually do not submit images of children, clothes or not, but I do not think that doing it is really an incentive to pedophily. You can see images like that at TV channels when products for young children are advertised, at least here in Italy. So, it makes no sense to prevent them here to be submitted. In particular that image is lovely and very polite.
Reply
|
|
|
From john2/John (6,345)
on February 10, 2006 7:36:29 PM CST
Personally I don't consider the picture to be offensive although I would not post such a picture. My belief is that the State needs a bogeyman of some description to keep the population frightened and cowed into accepting bad legislation on the pretense of offering protection from the bogeyman. If there is no bogeyman one must be invented (this is not intended as a partisan statement since governments of all persuasions seem similar in this regard).
Certainly in the UK the two current bogeymen are terrorists and paedophiles. We are expected to endure all sorts of stupidity "to protect against terrorism" or "to protect children from harm". Naturally most bureaucracy merely costs a lot of money while making no progress towards the stated aims.
Due to the heightened paranoia about paedophilia I would say the safest course of action is simply to steer clear. Much as I hate to bow down to the gods of lunacy, paranoia and political correctness gone mad, I would hate to be the one selected to be made an example of simply to protect this particular principle.
Reply
|
|
|
From deus/Ioan (2,030)
on February 11, 2006 7:10:46 AM CST
One of my first shots here was called "Little Princess" A fully dressed shot of my kid sister. Someone said we saw too much into her shirt. So I gues people will always see what they want to see.
Reply
|
|
|
From kdphotography/Iain (275)
on May 2, 2006 6:19:44 AM CDT
Now this is a can of worms if ever I saw one.
My own personal thoughts are that children are people and regardless of the
style, theme or look of the shot the photographer is attempting to acquire they
should be treated with respect and dignity.
If there is parental consent for an implied nude shot to be taken then it is
the responsibility of the photographer not to pose a 5 or 6 year old like a
penthouse or Mayfair model and to capture the innocence within and not something
that can be accused of looking dodgy or seedy. For me a good nude or implied
nude isn't about showing everything it is about capturing a feeling or a
sentiment.
There is no need for frontal nudes of young boys or young girls showing
intimate areas at all, the positioning of a hand, a prop or a light to generate
shadow is far more aesthetically pleasing in general. Some people will always
argue art should not be censored and some will always argue children should not
be photographed naked but where is the balance. At what age does nude work
become unacceptable to these people as if the reason for their stance is that
nude images of children feed paedophiles sick perversions then how acceptable is
it for us to compliment how beautiful and natural the image of a new born or
very young baby to be photographed in the nude as I am sure we are all perfectly
aware that sickness is not restricted to just older children. Or is it that
because we can not understand or want to acknowledge or accept that there is a
sickness out there that would corrupt the very innocence of a baby and see a
photograph as something sexual of one so young.
The argument that pornography leads to rape or abuse is weak at best, the
actual fact is there are people out there that are capable of and have the
intention to abuse others, the simple fact they have had or will have access to
photographic images is neither here nor there, the media has made us all hyper
aware that if people see naked children they will not be able to control
themselves and the children will get harmed, for me that sounds a but like
paranoid hype.
There was a study into child abusers and I apologize I can not remember the
source or the research facility that carried it out but one of the questions was
why abusers targeted certain children and a high percentage stated that "It was
the way they where dressed that made them stand out" so are we now to dress our
kids in totally none attractive clothes, and if so what the hell are non
attractive clothes. We clad them in jeans, jumpers, Wellington boots and winter
coats and later find out that someone was arrested for abducting a child and
read they had a fetish for winter coats and Wellington boots, the world is crazy
the media builds on paranoia and fear and we as a society respond by accepting
it and more worryingly accepting it as fact.
Coming back to the real issue which is as photographers what do we want to
show in our portfolios, we all want our portfolios to represent the style and
quality of our work and show the range of styles we can create for our clients,
and yes in many cases this will include children in a semi undressed state, such
classic looks as a boy in a pair of denim jeans and no shirt is classed in media
terms as a semi nude so given that I guess all of us at one time or another have
created child nudes at some level.
The whole legal issue is complex at best one image may be illegal where as
another may be perfectly acceptable, here in the UK some time back we had a
photographer arrested and questioned by police for including some shots of her
children enjoying a day at the beach, they where her own children but because
they where naked and in a public display the police had reason to question her,
now that is crazy in my eyes.
Photography these days is about protecting yourself as much as it is about
presenting quality images, personally if I am photographing someone else's
children I make sure that the parent or guardian stays in the same room or
location throughout the whole shoot and I have them sign a release to say as
much.
What photographers present online is another big issue as regardless of where
you want your work to be seen you can guarantee that it will be stolen and
placed in other places to, especially images of children regardless of what they
are wearing. I have personally stopped applying my copyright and name to images
after a very unpleasant experience and one everyone should look out for.
I received an email from a person who I have no doubts that they where doing
it in some self asserted crusade against paedophiles on the internet that they
had seen 2 of my photographs bearing my copyright name at a web site address
that he included, I was confused and concerned so I clicked the link and was
horrified at what else found it's way on to my screen. That wouldn't have
happened if I had not added my business name to the corner of the image which I
did with the intention of protecting it, where as it actually placed me in a
great deal of potential risk.
We all know that the internet is used by all types of people and some of them
have very different agendas to the rest of us so I guess the bottom line is for
us to act in a way that we are both comfortable with and post images with
content matter that is honest and true and respectful of the subjects in them.
We can't control the world and shit happens, but if the shit is jumped on or
picked up you just end up getting it all over you so sit back and plant a rose
in the shit and wait for the flowers to bloom.
Not really sure if i answered the original question in this reply but it is
how I feel about the whole issue and I hope someone enjoys reading it.
All the best
Iain
Reply
|
|
|
From robertwallis/Robert (12,897)
on May 2, 2006 11:16:42 PM CDT
It's usually considered bad form to wake up old forum topics this far back. Notice the dates on the main body of responses and they date back to last year. It's not a bad deal or anything, just that the topic died a natural death and there's no reason to pump life back into it. Best Regards.
Reply
|
|
|
From kdphotography/Iain (275)
on May 3, 2006 2:43:51 AM CDT
10 posts added in February 2006, have completely lost a year and we are now in 2007? it is not bad deal or anything but it is usually considered censorship when we tell people where to post and where not to post, I arrived here in April 2006 and if I see older threads that I have a valid contribution to add to unless the admin of the site have actually closed the thread then I will add it and am free to do so.
Thank you for your advice and concern, Best regards.
Reply
|
|
|
From mudgeon/Del (6,114)
on May 3, 2006 9:40:57 AM CDT
Not censorship and not usually considered censorship by most people, just good sense. Discussions this long get hard to read, a reply to an old discussion might be to a member who is not presently active. If the topic is still timely, a new discussion referring to the old one, but with a new point to be made, will generate its own discussion. You are free to do as you describe, and other members are free to point out their views on your posts.
Reply
|
Return to forum
|
