Is Salon.com Promoting Kiddy-Porn?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 87
    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    Sometime there can be fine line between porn and what some people like to call "art" but I think this crosses that line.



    "Ick" is right.



    edit: removed some hateful comments.



    [ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 87
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    The jury's out here.
  • Reply 3 of 87
    Jock Sturges is a photographer.

    Nothing more and nothing less. It's his subjects that irk people. Young females in the passage between youth and maturity. Physically, allegorically and in some images sexually. But there is no pornography represented in his work and all the models are consented by their parents.



    Most of the models in his work are very comfortable in their nudity. Many are nudists in Europe where their parents do the same. They are comfortable in their nudity whereas in other places it's considered "dirty".



    This attitude reflects our screwed up perceptions of what is art and what is porn in a country (US) that uses sexual innuendo constantly and exploitatively.



    My opinion. You won't see Jock Sturges books on my shelf or coffee table but I respect his work.
  • Reply 4 of 87
    ferroferro Posts: 453member
    I remember seeing Sturges book at a local book store and was very surprised it was there... in public, I opened it up and took a casual look thru it... most of the pictures in it are "questionable" only under the pre-created "everything that it even related to the nude human body is bad complex"... the back of the book claimed the "safety" of the children was paramount...but it was the question of the implication of material such as this on the human mind and its (hormonally) variable morality is of a concern to me... some people have "hormonal and psychological addictions and weaknesses to anything sexually related" and the implication or draw of material like this can be a pre-lude to pedophilia and thus under the implication of its effects on society at large I could not support even this new breed of art/ultra soft kiddy....art? due to its implications...



    I think this type of "kiddy art?" is a "loop hole" for pediphiles... several sites on the internet have sprung up recently that have altered the way the shoot children in order to comply with certain "artistic" requirements that protect them from being arrested and shut-down. although the actual photographing in jock sturges books may be safe to those being photographed (On the back of the book is a long list of people with info on how to contact them - who he has used in his photography and a disclaimer of the methods and context of the photoshoots) the regulars of his book are those individuals in nudist camps that seek nudism as a life-style., often children are photgraphed with there mothers along side... in total agreement to being photographed



    I would call material like this a "legal gateway drug" to pedophilia...



    But I would also mention that the television has also had its part in furthering the danger to children by using children on tv in adult roles and adult contexts, what I mean by that is I have seen many commercials and movies, etc. on tv lately that involve children in situations or activities actually out of there possibilty that can involve them "if only" in a fictitous context into a real life context... in reality or incite a person to believe "its OK" for them to be placed under that context or situation that may lead to the abuse and great danger to child population at large because of the false reality shown on tv, If our media continues to support this type of false child projections into the adult world the problem of child abuse and pedophilia, kidnapping for purposes of, rape, etc. will only grow...



    I am not supporting this type of photography, but I must note even under the best of conditions and care, it is not the book itself that concerns me... it is the effects of it...



    E PLURIBUS UNIX

    ------------------------------------

  • Reply 5 of 87
    It aint that bad. Yes, theres fine line there, but I think that he just barely crosses into art. Hes attempting to portray beauty, thus it is portrasying something, even if the material is questionable.
  • Reply 6 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by FERRO:

    <strong>I would call material like this a "legal gateway drug" to pedophilia...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    As Rock and Roll music is to the degeneration of society...



    Some of your points are valid, but honestly I think the Internet has become more of a "gateway" to the access to real sexual perversions and child pornography than with any of Sturges work in a bookstore.



    Easy, anonymous access to a specific free newsgroup or pay web site...anywhere and anytime in your own home. Plus the sickos who lurk in teen chatrooms and such.
  • Reply 7 of 87
    It is odd how we tolerate (encourage) the graphic and wholesale depiction of death, broken bodies, blood and guts on the news everyday, the inside of human bodies in hospital operations, arbitrary and gratuitous violence on TV, in newspapers, movies and videogames, all within easy access of child-viewing, yet the sight of a bare female breast or a picture of a nude teenager in a non-pornographic pose promotes pre-programmed outrage. Are we so entangled in repressed guilt?



    If (Sturges') photograph is kiddie-porn, then that series of commercials aired by Calvin Klein on TV and billboards a few years back was far more "hard-core" and sexually suggestive. (Sex is the biggest handle employed by advertisers to sell product).



    And, if Salon.com is "guilty of kiddie-porn", then the poster of this thread is equally so, by airing it on a public message board.
  • Reply 8 of 87
    ferroferro Posts: 453member
    Its strange how we see bands of adults burning hundeds of "Harry Potter" books while book like sturges are hardly ever mentioned... not to mention the implication or the actual influence the dark side of the internet can have on surfing kids... A large percentage of adults who let their children surf "freely" havent "a clue" of what the internet actual can be...



    I first got on the internet when I was 17 or 18 with one of those newfangled "Webtvs"... And soon developed a addiction to free pornography... "A month later I brought it back to the store", becuase of its influence on my life...( I have often had to perform a "Failsafe" "against my will action" to save mself from things like this) I was staying up until the morning and sleeping during the day and hardly ever whent outside anymore... didnt even talk to my family members... I ate food in my room, etc...



    About two months passed And I thought I had the strength to resist it this time and got one of those "New Webtvs" and later got the habit back again... lol...



    then after I brought that one back, a month or two passed and I got my first job, A month or two after that I bought a computer... And got the problem again... Now I could download stuff...



    I brought that computer back too... a month later...



    I had been buying and selling/returning computers for a long time before I realized that a pattern was emerging and havent had a problem for three years... going into "Job Corps" was a big help for me to get away from my access to computers and to relinquish my sense of security and personal space, privacy... - "I didnt go in there to better myself, I just went to get away from a degenerative cycle (another failsafe action)", I am twenty two now and occasionally I run into a site that catches my eye but I know better now...



    But not everyone has a "Failsafe - for my own good" instict like me and get really cuaght up in the addictive nature of internet porn...



    Now I am addicted to AI and MacNN.. LOL...



    really I sit up late night just looking for good topics in forums... I suppose this is a better addiction to have...




    [quote] yet the sight of a bare female breast or a picture of a nude teenager in a non-pornographic pose promotes pre-programmed outrage <hr></blockquote>



    I always found it so stupid that some people think that blocking channels from even being displayed on the television sets was the answer, I would say it was the ultimate form of introducing an unhealthy "desire" for the forbidden... Often these channel blockers display a large black screen with a message that only serves to illicite an newfound interest in the unknown...



    Disclaimer: This topics thread title is no indication of the type of porn I was addicted to... No Kiddy Stuff!



    E PLURIBUS UNIX

    ------------------------------------





    [ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 87
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    The content is not right. Just because the parents consented does not make it right. Not all parents (and this may suprise you) know what is best for their children. They try their level best to do what is right, but they are not always successful. What have these parents taught their kids? It is OK to pose nude for "artisitc purposes". For those who have no problem with nudity as art I am sure you agree. So posing for Playboy, Simply art? How about Hustler? Art is in the eye of the beholder and anyone can say that what they are doing is art and seek protection based on that. Naked children is not as bad as Hustler, but now they have that thought in their mind that since that is ok... Will all of them be that way, no. But this parent sponsored acceptance will go further towards letting them know it is ok rather than not ok...



    Ok, now you can all tell me how closed minded and repressed I am...
  • Reply 10 of 87
    I dont see how nudity is such a huge issue. From what I read, these photographs were not sexual at all. Why do we have such a phobia aginst nakedness?
  • Reply 11 of 87
    ferroferro Posts: 453member
    Americans are very "closed minded and repressed"...



    E PLURIBUS UNIX

    ------------------------------------

  • Reply 12 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>

    If (Sturges') photograph is kiddie-porn, then that series of commercials aired by Calvin Klein on TV and billboards a few years back was far more "hard-core" and sexually suggestive. (Sex is the biggest handle employed by advertisers to sell product).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Those don't even compare. If we just catalogue the two the difference is clear. Picture of nude young girl cleverly covered up or cropped. Picture of model with shirt off in suggestive setting.



    I wouldn't call the CK one "far more "hard-core" and sexually suggestive". You're just trying to mitigate what this photographer is doing by painting something else as worse. If you remember CK got slammed for it. So it wan't okay then.



    The sexualization of children is not a good trend. Sure children can (are?) sexual. Little girls grow up and want to wear belly shirts and short skirts. Little boys get the idea early on that the want to put something in something they just don't know what or where.



    Adults don't need to help this process along by snapping nude sexual pics of kids even if the kids don't care. We don't need more men beating off to little girl pics. Although I'm not convinced that porn is the gateway drug to pedophilia. Just leave the kids alone and don't turn them in to sex objects for adults.
  • Reply 13 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by FERRO:

    <strong>Its strange how we see bands of adults burning hundeds of "Harry Potter" books while book like sturges are hardly ever mentioned... not to mention the implication or the actual influence the dark side of the internet can have on surfing kids... A large percentage of adults who let their children surf "freely" havent "a clue" of what the internet actual can be...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    FERRO you should be commended for your actions. You are one of a majority of people who been through this and have "come back". I myself when first on the Internet was "addicted" to this behavior...but only for a while. Most porn bores me...prefer the real thing.



    But I have seen others who become glued to their computer and seem to sink deeper into this netherworld. I still think it is a very small minority who really never seem to want to come back to reality. I had one person I knew who got caught...after sending his computer to a repair shop and the technician found these files of an illegal nature. He contacted the police and he was sent to jail. He actually in all aspects a pretty decent, intelligent guy.



    As far as the overall display of Sturges books in stores...if I ever saw them, they were in the Art/Photography section and sealed. If you saw one open and out on display that's the bookstore's fault for not knowing that his work should be placed away from minors or people easily offended by this form of art. Not, let's say next to the Harry Potter section...
  • Reply 14 of 87
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    I worry more about people who find these pictures inappropriate than the children posing. Clearly they're seeing something in these pictures most do not.



    And if this is seen as a "loophole" for paedophiles, surely that's better than the real issue of child pornography - that children are abused and forced to pose for pictures, and often perform sexual acts on their abusers.



    If paedophiles want to masturbate over these images then let them. At least it keeps them from abusing kids, or inciting others to by accessing images on the internet.



    I can't believe some people would deprive us of the beautiful photographs of Sally Mann and Tierney Gearon because they find images of nudity "disgusting", even if those pictured are children.



    Oh, and if you find these photographs disgusting, here's a tip:



    DON'T GO TO STURGES' EXHIBITION.



    [ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:

    <strong>I had one person I knew who got caught...after sending his computer to a repair shop and the technician found these files of an illegal nature. He contacted the police and he was sent to jail. He actually in all aspects a pretty decent, intelligent guy.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I just borrowed a notebook from the computer guy here at work. He was telling me about how most everyone leaves porn on the notebooks after they return them. Right on the Desktop. The computers are for "home use" and these people are allowed to do "whatever" with them but you'd think they'd delete the porn before they return it?



    The computer guy just reformats and reinstalls all notebooks that he gets back without even looking.
  • Reply 16 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>The computer guy just reformats and reinstalls all notebooks that he gets back without even looking.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, that is the only way of removing any traces of files/data. Even if one believes that just dragging, dropping and deleting files will remove all traces (especially on a Windows OS) are very wrong. I don't know what Macs leave behind. I've heard too that there are apps that'll do a clean sweep of all data if needed...there's an application for everything. Just as the FBI has them to find and recover deleted files and data.
  • Reply 17 of 87
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I don't see anything explicit or distasteful about Sturges' work ,with what little I have seen of it before. It is a matter of taste, but nudity is not a Bad Thing? inherently.
  • Reply 18 of 87
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    [quote]Originally posted by Belle:

    <strong>I worry more about people who find these pictures inappropriate than the children posing. Clearly they're seeing something in these pictures most do not.



    [Snip]



    Oh, and if you find these photographs disgusting, here's a tip:



    DON'T GO TO STURGES' EXHIBITION.



    [ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Nice job of turning those concerned into the real problem. Obvioulsy because we don't like to see young, teenage girls who are not of majority age shown nude for the world to ogle we are abviously much more of a problem than the fact that such things exist and are called art.



    And as for your tip. I won't be attending one of his exhibits. But the questions was put out so I and others put in our $0.02 worth. I guess that makes us drooling perverts who are "seeing something in these pictures most do not." :eek: I always preferred the term concerned parent actually.
  • Reply 19 of 87
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    [quote]

    Nice job of turning those concerned into the real problem. Obvioulsy because we don't like to see young, teenage girls who are not of majority age shown nude for the world to ogle we are abviously much more of a problem than the fact that such things exist and are called art.

    <hr></blockquote>



    dude, stfu. you think that suddenly when a girl turns 18 she's magically transformed from a child to an adult? maybe legally, but realistically that's a load of crap.



    you've been socialized to think that 18 is the first age where it's ok to look at a girl and think she's hot. at 17, you're a pervert. 18, now it's all good.



    there are dozens of cultures where people get married and start having children when they're in their teens. in fact, if you want to take a purly scientific look at womenhood vs. childhood you'd use something like a girl having her period to try and distinguish between the two.



    man, people are so afraid of being labeled a pervert that they're ready to torch anyone who does something that might not be totall PC.



    get a life.



    concerned parent doesn't mean you're right, or that you base your concern on anything logically sound.



    if you lived 100 years ago, you'd probably be just as sure that a 16 year old was getting a little old to still be single.



    you are a product of your socialization. just chill out. sheesh.
  • Reply 20 of 87
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Not a bad point about the 18 "cut-off" age. Again, nudity isn't pornography.
Sign In or Register to comment.