he he, just like i don't understand some of your arguments, i also don't understand attacking a person because you don't like what they say.
still waiting for a reply though, unless you really think that you've already answered what i said. in which case i'll have to go reread your post for a third time.
what you are saying is that the criteria you use to judge whether or not someone is a woman or a girl are completely unbased on any specific criteria. Everyone falls into the same category across the board, no matter what. (with a few exceptions for the mentally deficient). so you base your view of adulthood on a strictly legal basis.
what do you think about countries where the legal age of adulthood is under 18? or over 18? if these models are photographed where 16 is an adult, are the images OK then? if they were 18, but filmed in a country where you weren't legally an adult until 19, would they be OK then?
i fail to see how your criteria of "18 is ok" makes sense. it's based on U.S. law, and that's it? what if the laws change? it is riddled with holes and has no logical basis.
<hr></blockquote>
Not exactly what I said. Not everyone falls into the same category no matter what as far as those who may be ready to be married earlier on or not which was one point you made in your argument. But as far as taking a young teen and sanpping a nude picture of her to put in a book that strangers will eye either as art or as a book full of nude minors I don't feel is right. (Personally I don't like pornography either, but this is not the subject. That may help you in your own eyes understand and then paste a new label on me that way.) What I am saying is that there has to be a way to cut off or draw a line in the sand, and the way that I personally have chosen is the age factor. Pre 18 is legally a minor child and therefore not right to sell nude pictures of to people. parents permission or not.
Going further off of your statment about laws and ages and other countries, if it is ok in some countries for kiddie porn (not what I am saying this is but heck, everyone else had their chance to phenominalize things, now its my turn) to be sold to people and that form of pronography was only OK if the parents gave permission and the child was ok with it would you feel it was a problem. Why or why not?
[quote]
if you can explain to me the fundamental difference between a girl one day before, and one day after her 18th birthday that makes her an adult, i'd love to hear it. even our own court system has a hard time defining where adulthood sets in.
<hr></blockquote>
You know very well that there is no one day where some one becomes an adult. It is a process and there are plenty of 20 somethings out there that have no business calling themselves adults and some 14 year olds that could run a household and hold down a job with no problems. It is more dependant on the person than the age. Teh eage factor was put into place though for the sake of universality (not sure if this is really the word I am looking for) to give a general age at which a person is no longer a child and becomes responsible for their own actions. Which leads us to you next question...
[quote]
kids have been tried for murder as adults as young as 13 (perhaps lower, i don't recall offhand), are we to thefore say some girls could be considered adults at 13 as well? are kids only adult-like in our legal system when they've done something wrong? i don't get the whole 18 is ok bit.
<hr></blockquote>
This is a whole other topic in some respects but I can see your tie in. How can we try a child as an adult. Part of this I think comes down to my point of some parents do not know what is best for their child and so laws were put in place that if said child breaks law A he can be tried as an adult under statute B. Because there were many cases where the chile was remanded to his/her parents authority and they did nothing to curb the sociopathic behavior and the child committed the same crime or worse becuase of it. This is a societal way of forcing responsibility for ones actions even if their parents are not willing to do so. It has its merits and its pitfalls. Once again, you are applying a semi-static ruler and saying if someone measures up to this then they are A even if it may not always be the case. Just as with the move to adulthood, if you are 18 you are an adult.
[quote]
i'll touch on this again, just for kicks. a girl could feel proud of her beauty. she could learn to not be ashamed of her body. she could have a positive self image. learn assertiveness. many benefits can come from being a model in a professional photographer's works. quite frankly, giving young women a positive self image of who they are and how they look could easily be considered a significant beneft.
along the same lines, you have yet to explain what harm comes to the model for being in the pictures. you want me to justify what good is likely to come of it, i'd like you to explain to me what harm you feel is likely to come of it.
<hr></blockquote>
That all sounds nice but the reality is that some will get the self-assertiveness and some will just devalue themselves in that if they do not show their naked selves then they are somehow holding back and not worth as much to the person who may be their future relationships down the road. Another point I made before was:
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...
That was bit vague now that I read it again. My basic intent here was to say that being childrent they may not be able to tell the difference between an "art" shoot and a porn shoot. Heck, not all porn magazines show the actual sex, some are just the naked body exploited. They may feel that what they are doing is the same as porn and since mommy and daddy say it is ok, shoot, "Lets go pose for Hustler, playboy and swank. It's no different." when there is a difference.
[quote]
this is your opinion. are you saying that if a handful of people look at these pictures for a sexual high, the images in and of themselves have no artistic value?
what about an artist who loves to depict feet. think someone who has a foot fetish nullifies all of the art in the pictures because they get off on those pictures of feet?
what about a women nude? (18+) is it not art if a women is nude because some men and women are sexually aroused by it? what if that wasn't the artist's intention? does the veiwer who doesn't appreciate the artistic value of a piece dictate whether or not something is art?
<hr></blockquote>
Argument for the sake of arguing. Obviously people have different things that push their buttons. Feet, necks, bellybuttons, fatness, lips, eyes, whatever. Some things just are, there is nohing wrong with them but in the eyes of some people it is just a huge turn on. So good for them they can get a thrill reading the shoe ads. Oh happy day. It is not the same as doing this with a book full of young, underage, nude females. There is not any comaprison, I will not draw that line as it does not exist.
[quote]
quite simply put, no. people wear clothes for many reasons, one of the most significant of which is to hide how they look. people tend to have an inherent shame of their bodies and how they look. a subject with clothes on represents something totally different than a subject who is nude.
<hr></blockquote>
Sorry to hear that. For me there is more to beauty than that. If you need to see their nude behind to see their true beauty then you are missing the bigger picture by a long shot. All the nudity does is add the erotic sexual undertones that only pull away from the actual beaty that many see otherwise. This is just my opinion, and you can take it or leave it, but it does not make me a bad person as you opinion does not make you a bad person. I just happen to disagree with you about what you think.
And Belle, I am not going to go down the road you are trying so hard to pave. If I have a problem with underage girls being shot nude for a photo book then that is all. There is nothing sick or perverted there, it is just my moral decision. I am not imposing it on you, I am merely telling you how I feel. For you to project your thoughts as the only right ones and anyone who disagrees:
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.
BS. Plain and simple. It is a moral choice and has nothing to do with seeing something that is not there. There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage. That is wrong by what I beleive. How does that worry you? Are morals that much of a problem for you? ( I am goading here but your assertion is really disturbing. ) To say that thsoe who are more conservative than you are the real problem is to ignore the issue I think. Sure you would not be hearing complaints about it, but even if we kept quiet about it nothing happens to these girls, or any other girls because of it. Where is this hidden danger you fear so. Be realistic if you reply.
This is probably my last post as I have better things to do than be called a pervert because I don't think a young girl should be pictured nude for everyone in the world to view. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
What about #3? I know _I'm_ the one with the probem. _I_ must have a sick mind for thinking this but doesn't it suggest her hands are tied behind her back? Must be me. I'm the sick-o.
I guess suggesting bondage (and rape?) of young nude girls is art? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>What about #3? I know _I'm_ the one with the probem. _I_ must have a sick mind for thinking this but doesn't it suggest her hands are tied behind her back? Must be me. I'm the sick-o. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it's you. Perv.
Seriously, though, I think this shows why this argument will never be resolved either in this thread or out in the big bad world. It's all much to subjective.
I find pictures of Conan O'Brien highly offensive, but I doubt they'll ever be banned.
[quote]<strong>I guess suggesting bondage (and rape?) of young nude girls is art? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again this is a question of what is "acceptable" to people.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't the subject matter of the picture, it's who was harmed in the taking of the picture, and who could be harmed viewing the picture.
Again this is a question of what is "acceptable" to people.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't the subject matter of the picture, it's who was harmed in the taking of the picture, and who could be harmed viewing the picture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>And Belle, I am not going to go down the road you are trying so hard to pave. If I have a problem with underage girls being shot nude for a photo book then that is all. There is nothing sick or perverted there, it is just my moral decision. I am not imposing it on you, I am merely telling you how I feel. For you to project your thoughts as the only right ones and anyone who disagrees:</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, I was being deliberately provocative, and it is a moral decision. The reason? People tried to have Sturges' exhibition shut down. Sturges, Mann, et al have been branded "perverts". People who go to see the exhibitions or buy the books branded perverts. The vast majority don't go along to be titillated, and yet many objectors see these images as "disgusting". And I most certainly wasn't "project[ing] [my] thoughts as the only right ones"! Just stating an opinion, as you are. My moral right. And here's where I have the real (personal) issue...
[quote]<strong>BS. Plain and simple. It is a moral choice and has nothing to do with seeing something that is not there. There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage. That is wrong by what I beleive. How does that worry you? Are morals that much of a problem for you? ( I am goading here but your assertion is really disturbing. ) To say that thsoe who are more conservative than you are the real problem is to ignore the issue I think. Sure you would not be hearing complaints about it, but even if we kept quiet about it nothing happens to these girls, or any other girls because of it. Where is this hidden danger you fear so. Be realistic if you reply.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See my post above. The important thing here is that the subjects of an image are not harmed, and those likely to be affected by viewing the image are not harmed.
Everyone has a right to a moral opinion, I have no objection to that.
The hidden danger I fear? Censorship.
I asked a question earlier that nobody (unless I missed it?) responded to - should we also ban books which depict teenage sexuality?
[Edit: Woah. Hold up, forgot something.
[quote]<strong>There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
She's a girl. No objection there. She is nude. No problem there. She is underage... hmm... underage for what, and by what standard?]
[quote]I asked a question earlier that nobody (unless I missed it?) responded to - should we also ban books which depict teenage sexuality?
<hr></blockquote>
Depict as in through words? Depict as in through pictures. What are the circumstances? There are more factors involved than your questions ask. And I cannot answer and hit all the main topics and clearly defend my point right now. Suffice it to say the answer is no. Except when it is inappropriate. Then the answer is yes. That subjective enough for you?
<strong>Depict as in through words? Depict as in through pictures. What are the circumstances? There are more factors involved than your questions ask.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apologies. I meant specifically novels, considered to be part of the (ick) "arts".
[quote]<strong>And I cannot answer and hit all the main topics and clearly defend my point right now.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No problem. I am trying to keep my posts shorter than some people in this thread, though.
[quote]<strong>Suffice it to say the answer is no. Except when it is inappropriate. Then the answer is yes. That subjective enough for you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>So bondage and rape of young girls is a matter of subjectivity? Hum? I'll go ask my friend that came very close to that what she thinks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. I didn't want to respond in detail to your previous post because I'd hoped you'd bring the word "rape" out of those enclosing parentheses.
I've already said in more than one post that the important issue is that nobody is harmed in the creation of these images, or by viewing the images. In fact I said as much in the paragraph after the one containing the word "subjective". See?
The teenagers in Sturges' images were consenting participants. They weren't forced to pose, and most certainly weren't forced to perform sexual acts.
This is where people are subjective. I don't care that some people find them distasteful, I only care if they do some harm. Nobody has given any reasonable argument that they do. Who is being hurt? Who are we trying to protect? Not rhetorical, I'd like to know.
I was priviledged to study photography under Jaclyn Cori, a personal friend of Sally Mann. In the class we had the opportunity to view and discuss a good bit of Mann's work. Simply put, it is stunning. The pictures that she takes are not only gorgeous photographs, but also depict the subjects (her children) in an incredibly loving light. The fact that the children are are sometimes nude is a small part of the work. However, it's the one part that's made her truly famous (infamous?) as tightwad conservatives immediately think "NAKED KIDS = PORNOGRAPHY." It's sad that something that's truly innocent in its subject matter is distorted into child pornography. And yes, I do think that the people who sexualize Sally Mann's work are the ones who are sick.
I'm not familiar enough with Jock Sturges work to have a weil informed opinion (I wish other people in this thread would realize the same). However, in concept, it's important to realize the distinction between nudity, sexuality, eroticism, and pornography. In no way is the work that I have seen of Sturges pornographic, in that it is not exploitative; it is not meant to titilate or arouse. It is quite easy to distinguish. I've no problem discerning between a pornographic magazine and a book of nude photography, even if that photography is erotic. Frankly I don't think I could "get off" on artistic nudity if I wanted to. Maybe I'm not perverted enough. :
"A distinction must be made between eroticism and pornography; the media have blurred the disparity to an unforgivable degree. For those intelligent enough to recongnize the difference, erotica will continue to hold a unique fascination. Social evils should not be confused with the pursuit of true beauty." - David Hamilton
Not at all. I didn't want to respond in detail to your previous post because I'd hoped you'd bring the word "rape" out of those enclosing parentheses.
I've already said in more than one post that the important issue is that nobody is harmed in the creation of these images, or by viewing the images. In fact I said as much in the paragraph after the one containing the word "subjective". See?
The teenagers in Sturges' images were consenting participants. They weren't forced to pose, and most certainly weren't forced to perform sexual acts.
This is where people are subjective. I don't care that some people find them distasteful, I only care if they do some harm. Nobody has given any reasonable argument that they do. Who is being hurt? Who are we trying to protect? Not rhetorical, I'd like to know.
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay so as long as this girl is okay with it and no one gets hurt then it's okay? Right? So if she wanted to do ... I don't know ... a *** shot would that be okay. How about her ******* a guy off? Is that okay? You can't get hurt by it. She may do it with her little boy friend. So why not shoot it under good lighting and use B&W film. Then it's art!
<strong>Okay so as long as this girl is okay with it and no one gets hurt then it's okay? Right? So if she wanted to do ... I don't know ... a *** shot would that be okay. How about her ******* a guy off? Is that okay? You can't get hurt by it. She may do it with her little boy friend. So why not shoot it under good lighting and use B&W film. Then it's art!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Holy crap. This is why I asked NoahJ to define "underage". Some things are illegal if you're underage, some are not. Performing sex acts underage is illegal, so I guess we'd question the motivation of someone who'd photograph such actions. Being naked isn't a crime in the appropriate place (Sturges' pictures were of nudists on a nudist beach), and taking pictures of consenting people without clothes on isn't illegal.
The concern we should all have is protecting the subjects of the photographs. Seems the law does this adequately in this case.
[Edit: I think you'd also have a difficult time in proving images of sex acts are something beyond an attempt at titillation.]
Well who's to say? Maybe the law is wrong. Of the girls is 17 years and 364 days does that make it "wrong". You're so close minded. If she's okay with it why do you care? No one's getting hurt.
<strong>Well who's to say? Maybe the law is wrong. Of the girls is 17 years and 364 days does that make it "wrong". You're so close minded. If she's okay with it why do you care? No one's getting hurt.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I stated that the law as it stands is in place to protect those who are "underage". I didn't say the law is correct, and I most certainly didn't offer a personal opinion about whether it would be "wrong" or not.
I could have stared at that photo for amillion years and NEVER would I have seen bondage implied in it.
I suppose we should paint those fig leaves and loin cloths back into the Last Judgement. That Michelangelo was such a horny boy! Oh, but thsoe are old and he's dead so it's different.
OK, seriously (well, the first sentence was serious too), I'm not going to defend thse guys absolutely. I certainly thought some of Mapplethorpe's images (and like so many contemporary artists these days going more for the "shock" than for the "new" or expressive) were pornographic. These guys could be doing that too as I do not know their work that well. But I've yet to come across any images like that from them.
Would it help if these were paintings and not photos?
Comments
still waiting for a reply though, unless you really think that you've already answered what i said. in which case i'll have to go reread your post for a third time.
what you are saying is that the criteria you use to judge whether or not someone is a woman or a girl are completely unbased on any specific criteria. Everyone falls into the same category across the board, no matter what. (with a few exceptions for the mentally deficient). so you base your view of adulthood on a strictly legal basis.
what do you think about countries where the legal age of adulthood is under 18? or over 18? if these models are photographed where 16 is an adult, are the images OK then? if they were 18, but filmed in a country where you weren't legally an adult until 19, would they be OK then?
i fail to see how your criteria of "18 is ok" makes sense. it's based on U.S. law, and that's it? what if the laws change? it is riddled with holes and has no logical basis.
<hr></blockquote>
Not exactly what I said. Not everyone falls into the same category no matter what as far as those who may be ready to be married earlier on or not which was one point you made in your argument. But as far as taking a young teen and sanpping a nude picture of her to put in a book that strangers will eye either as art or as a book full of nude minors I don't feel is right. (Personally I don't like pornography either, but this is not the subject. That may help you in your own eyes understand and then paste a new label on me that way.) What I am saying is that there has to be a way to cut off or draw a line in the sand, and the way that I personally have chosen is the age factor. Pre 18 is legally a minor child and therefore not right to sell nude pictures of to people. parents permission or not.
Going further off of your statment about laws and ages and other countries, if it is ok in some countries for kiddie porn (not what I am saying this is but heck, everyone else had their chance to phenominalize things, now its my turn) to be sold to people and that form of pronography was only OK if the parents gave permission and the child was ok with it would you feel it was a problem. Why or why not?
[quote]
if you can explain to me the fundamental difference between a girl one day before, and one day after her 18th birthday that makes her an adult, i'd love to hear it. even our own court system has a hard time defining where adulthood sets in.
<hr></blockquote>
You know very well that there is no one day where some one becomes an adult. It is a process and there are plenty of 20 somethings out there that have no business calling themselves adults and some 14 year olds that could run a household and hold down a job with no problems. It is more dependant on the person than the age. Teh eage factor was put into place though for the sake of universality (not sure if this is really the word I am looking for) to give a general age at which a person is no longer a child and becomes responsible for their own actions. Which leads us to you next question...
[quote]
kids have been tried for murder as adults as young as 13 (perhaps lower, i don't recall offhand), are we to thefore say some girls could be considered adults at 13 as well? are kids only adult-like in our legal system when they've done something wrong? i don't get the whole 18 is ok bit.
<hr></blockquote>
This is a whole other topic in some respects but I can see your tie in. How can we try a child as an adult. Part of this I think comes down to my point of some parents do not know what is best for their child and so laws were put in place that if said child breaks law A he can be tried as an adult under statute B. Because there were many cases where the chile was remanded to his/her parents authority and they did nothing to curb the sociopathic behavior and the child committed the same crime or worse becuase of it. This is a societal way of forcing responsibility for ones actions even if their parents are not willing to do so. It has its merits and its pitfalls. Once again, you are applying a semi-static ruler and saying if someone measures up to this then they are A even if it may not always be the case. Just as with the move to adulthood, if you are 18 you are an adult.
[quote]
i'll touch on this again, just for kicks. a girl could feel proud of her beauty. she could learn to not be ashamed of her body. she could have a positive self image. learn assertiveness. many benefits can come from being a model in a professional photographer's works. quite frankly, giving young women a positive self image of who they are and how they look could easily be considered a significant beneft.
along the same lines, you have yet to explain what harm comes to the model for being in the pictures. you want me to justify what good is likely to come of it, i'd like you to explain to me what harm you feel is likely to come of it.
<hr></blockquote>
That all sounds nice but the reality is that some will get the self-assertiveness and some will just devalue themselves in that if they do not show their naked selves then they are somehow holding back and not worth as much to the person who may be their future relationships down the road. Another point I made before was:
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...
That was bit vague now that I read it again. My basic intent here was to say that being childrent they may not be able to tell the difference between an "art" shoot and a porn shoot. Heck, not all porn magazines show the actual sex, some are just the naked body exploited. They may feel that what they are doing is the same as porn and since mommy and daddy say it is ok, shoot, "Lets go pose for Hustler, playboy and swank. It's no different." when there is a difference.
[quote]
this is your opinion. are you saying that if a handful of people look at these pictures for a sexual high, the images in and of themselves have no artistic value?
what about an artist who loves to depict feet. think someone who has a foot fetish nullifies all of the art in the pictures because they get off on those pictures of feet?
what about a women nude? (18+) is it not art if a women is nude because some men and women are sexually aroused by it? what if that wasn't the artist's intention? does the veiwer who doesn't appreciate the artistic value of a piece dictate whether or not something is art?
<hr></blockquote>
Argument for the sake of arguing. Obviously people have different things that push their buttons. Feet, necks, bellybuttons, fatness, lips, eyes, whatever. Some things just are, there is nohing wrong with them but in the eyes of some people it is just a huge turn on. So good for them they can get a thrill reading the shoe ads. Oh happy day. It is not the same as doing this with a book full of young, underage, nude females. There is not any comaprison, I will not draw that line as it does not exist.
[quote]
quite simply put, no. people wear clothes for many reasons, one of the most significant of which is to hide how they look. people tend to have an inherent shame of their bodies and how they look. a subject with clothes on represents something totally different than a subject who is nude.
<hr></blockquote>
Sorry to hear that. For me there is more to beauty than that. If you need to see their nude behind to see their true beauty then you are missing the bigger picture by a long shot. All the nudity does is add the erotic sexual undertones that only pull away from the actual beaty that many see otherwise. This is just my opinion, and you can take it or leave it, but it does not make me a bad person as you opinion does not make you a bad person. I just happen to disagree with you about what you think.
And Belle, I am not going to go down the road you are trying so hard to pave. If I have a problem with underage girls being shot nude for a photo book then that is all. There is nothing sick or perverted there, it is just my moral decision. I am not imposing it on you, I am merely telling you how I feel. For you to project your thoughts as the only right ones and anyone who disagrees:
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.
BS. Plain and simple. It is a moral choice and has nothing to do with seeing something that is not there. There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage. That is wrong by what I beleive. How does that worry you? Are morals that much of a problem for you? ( I am goading here but your assertion is really disturbing. ) To say that thsoe who are more conservative than you are the real problem is to ignore the issue I think. Sure you would not be hearing complaints about it, but even if we kept quiet about it nothing happens to these girls, or any other girls because of it. Where is this hidden danger you fear so. Be realistic if you reply.
This is probably my last post as I have better things to do than be called a pervert because I don't think a young girl should be pictured nude for everyone in the world to view. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
-Edit to fix quotes
[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
BTW, "erotic" is not the same as "pornographic" either.
[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
There are very specific guidelines called the Dost Factors, they come from a 1986 case:
U.S. vs. Dost, and were later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit U.S.Court of Appeals.
The Dost factors are used to help determine if an image contains factors such as
"lascivious exhibition of the genitalia or pubic area" as referred to in
<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html"; target="_blank">United States Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 110 Section 2256</a>,
or other factors which constitute child pornography.
The Dost Factors:
The Dost factors were articulated in order to provide a more concrete test
for determining whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a
"lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" under 18 U.S.C.
2256(2)(E):
1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's
genitalia or pubic area;
2) whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e.,
in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;
3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate
attire, considering the age of the child;
4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
5) whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to
engage in sexual activity;
6) whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual
response in the viewer.
636 F. Supp. at 832. The court readily admitted that this list is not
exhaustive as other factors may be relevant in particular cases.
So, in my opinion, Sturges and Hamilton's photos do not violate these factors at all (#'s 5 and 6 are a little vague though...).
To each their own. If you don't like them then don't look at them.
<strong>If you don't like them then don't look at them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If only that were all there was to it.
<hr></blockquote>
So #4 has nothing to do with it then? Just 5 and 6?
I guess suggesting bondage (and rape?) of young nude girls is art? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>What about #3? I know _I'm_ the one with the probem. _I_ must have a sick mind for thinking this but doesn't it suggest her hands are tied behind her back? Must be me. I'm the sick-o.
Yes, it's you. Perv.
Seriously, though, I think this shows why this argument will never be resolved either in this thread or out in the big bad world. It's all much to subjective.
I find pictures of Conan O'Brien highly offensive, but I doubt they'll ever be banned.
[quote]<strong>I guess suggesting bondage (and rape?) of young nude girls is art?
Again this is a question of what is "acceptable" to people.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't the subject matter of the picture, it's who was harmed in the taking of the picture, and who could be harmed viewing the picture.
<strong>
Again this is a question of what is "acceptable" to people.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't the subject matter of the picture, it's who was harmed in the taking of the picture, and who could be harmed viewing the picture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. But that surprises no one I am sure.
<strong>And Belle, I am not going to go down the road you are trying so hard to pave. If I have a problem with underage girls being shot nude for a photo book then that is all. There is nothing sick or perverted there, it is just my moral decision. I am not imposing it on you, I am merely telling you how I feel. For you to project your thoughts as the only right ones and anyone who disagrees:</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, I was being deliberately provocative, and it is a moral decision. The reason? People tried to have Sturges' exhibition shut down. Sturges, Mann, et al have been branded "perverts". People who go to see the exhibitions or buy the books branded perverts. The vast majority don't go along to be titillated, and yet many objectors see these images as "disgusting". And I most certainly wasn't "project[ing] [my] thoughts as the only right ones"! Just stating an opinion, as you are. My moral right. And here's where I have the real (personal) issue...
[quote]<strong>BS. Plain and simple. It is a moral choice and has nothing to do with seeing something that is not there. There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage. That is wrong by what I beleive. How does that worry you? Are morals that much of a problem for you? ( I am goading here but your assertion is really disturbing. ) To say that thsoe who are more conservative than you are the real problem is to ignore the issue I think. Sure you would not be hearing complaints about it, but even if we kept quiet about it nothing happens to these girls, or any other girls because of it. Where is this hidden danger you fear so. Be realistic if you reply.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See my post above. The important thing here is that the subjects of an image are not harmed, and those likely to be affected by viewing the image are not harmed.
Everyone has a right to a moral opinion, I have no objection to that.
The hidden danger I fear? Censorship.
I asked a question earlier that nobody (unless I missed it?) responded to - should we also ban books which depict teenage sexuality?
[Edit: Woah. Hold up, forgot something.
[quote]<strong>There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
She's a girl. No objection there. She is nude. No problem there. She is underage... hmm... underage for what, and by what standard?]
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
Depict as in through words? Depict as in through pictures. What are the circumstances? There are more factors involved than your questions ask. And I cannot answer and hit all the main topics and clearly defend my point right now. Suffice it to say the answer is no. Except when it is inappropriate. Then the answer is yes. That subjective enough for you?
<strong>Depict as in through words? Depict as in through pictures. What are the circumstances? There are more factors involved than your questions ask.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apologies. I meant specifically novels, considered to be part of the (ick) "arts".
[quote]<strong>And I cannot answer and hit all the main topics and clearly defend my point right now.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No problem. I am trying to keep my posts shorter than some people in this thread, though.
[quote]<strong>Suffice it to say the answer is no. Except when it is inappropriate. Then the answer is yes. That subjective enough for you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. Which is, as I said before, the problem.
<strong>So bondage and rape of young girls is a matter of subjectivity? Hum? I'll go ask my friend that came very close to that what she thinks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. I didn't want to respond in detail to your previous post because I'd hoped you'd bring the word "rape" out of those enclosing parentheses.
I've already said in more than one post that the important issue is that nobody is harmed in the creation of these images, or by viewing the images. In fact I said as much in the paragraph after the one containing the word "subjective". See?
The teenagers in Sturges' images were consenting participants. They weren't forced to pose, and most certainly weren't forced to perform sexual acts.
This is where people are subjective. I don't care that some people find them distasteful, I only care if they do some harm. Nobody has given any reasonable argument that they do. Who is being hurt? Who are we trying to protect? Not rhetorical, I'd like to know.
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
I'm not familiar enough with Jock Sturges work to have a weil informed opinion (I wish other people in this thread would realize the same). However, in concept, it's important to realize the distinction between nudity, sexuality, eroticism, and pornography. In no way is the work that I have seen of Sturges pornographic, in that it is not exploitative; it is not meant to titilate or arouse. It is quite easy to distinguish. I've no problem discerning between a pornographic magazine and a book of nude photography, even if that photography is erotic. Frankly I don't think I could "get off" on artistic nudity if I wanted to. Maybe I'm not perverted enough.
"A distinction must be made between eroticism and pornography; the media have blurred the disparity to an unforgivable degree. For those intelligent enough to recongnize the difference, erotica will continue to hold a unique fascination. Social evils should not be confused with the pursuit of true beauty." - David Hamilton
<strong>
Not at all. I didn't want to respond in detail to your previous post because I'd hoped you'd bring the word "rape" out of those enclosing parentheses.
I've already said in more than one post that the important issue is that nobody is harmed in the creation of these images, or by viewing the images. In fact I said as much in the paragraph after the one containing the word "subjective". See?
The teenagers in Sturges' images were consenting participants. They weren't forced to pose, and most certainly weren't forced to perform sexual acts.
This is where people are subjective. I don't care that some people find them distasteful, I only care if they do some harm. Nobody has given any reasonable argument that they do. Who is being hurt? Who are we trying to protect? Not rhetorical, I'd like to know.
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay so as long as this girl is okay with it and no one gets hurt then it's okay? Right? So if she wanted to do ... I don't know ... a *** shot would that be okay. How about her ******* a guy off? Is that okay? You can't get hurt by it. She may do it with her little boy friend. So why not shoot it under good lighting and use B&W film. Then it's art!
<strong>Okay so as long as this girl is okay with it and no one gets hurt then it's okay? Right? So if she wanted to do ... I don't know ... a *** shot would that be okay. How about her ******* a guy off? Is that okay? You can't get hurt by it. She may do it with her little boy friend. So why not shoot it under good lighting and use B&W film. Then it's art!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Holy crap. This is why I asked NoahJ to define "underage". Some things are illegal if you're underage, some are not. Performing sex acts underage is illegal, so I guess we'd question the motivation of someone who'd photograph such actions. Being naked isn't a crime in the appropriate place (Sturges' pictures were of nudists on a nudist beach), and taking pictures of consenting people without clothes on isn't illegal.
The concern we should all have is protecting the subjects of the photographs. Seems the law does this adequately in this case.
[Edit: I think you'd also have a difficult time in proving images of sex acts are something beyond an attempt at titillation.]
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<strong>Well who's to say? Maybe the law is wrong. Of the girls is 17 years and 364 days does that make it "wrong". You're so close minded. If she's okay with it why do you care? No one's getting hurt.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I stated that the law as it stands is in place to protect those who are "underage". I didn't say the law is correct, and I most certainly didn't offer a personal opinion about whether it would be "wrong" or not.
I suppose we should paint those fig leaves and loin cloths back into the Last Judgement. That Michelangelo was such a horny boy! Oh, but thsoe are old and he's dead so it's different.
OK, seriously (well, the first sentence was serious too), I'm not going to defend thse guys absolutely. I certainly thought some of Mapplethorpe's images (and like so many contemporary artists these days going more for the "shock" than for the "new" or expressive) were pornographic. These guys could be doing that too as I do not know their work that well. But I've yet to come across any images like that from them.
Would it help if these were paintings and not photos?