Art or porn?

[Asguard]

that post is exactly the reason i was debating wether to post my assesment of the photos in the first place. I highly doubt that if the expression wasnt the one he wanted he would publish it.

 

[skaught]

Nothing turns a pedophile on like a depressed and vulnerable naked preteen.

 

[Prince_James]

Skaught:

I don't have a problem with underage naked girls being depicted in art. Its the context they are portrayed in. In this context, it is nothing more than a picture of a nude preteen. It serves only one purpose... I'll leave that up to your imagination.

Let me ask you this: Suppose Renoit (or was it Monet's?) famous painting of the bathing teenage girls (in the nude) were to be reproduced in photographic medium by an artist. Would you consider that "pedophilic"?

Whereas I agree this is lousy art, I am not seeing the sexual content due to the nudity alone. If she was rubbing her cunt and moaning, that would be one thing. That would be fucking obscene and pornographic. She is doing nothing of that sort of sordid type.

Also, let us make one distinguishing factor: These girls seem to be adolescents. As such, this is ephebophilia not pedophilia. The distinction is strong, as pedophilia is (rightfully) considered a very vicious sexual-pathological thing, whereas ephebophilia is hardly considered as such.

 

[skaught]

Skaught:



Let me ask you this: Suppose Renoit (or was it Monet's?) famous painting of the bathing teenage girls (in the nude) were to be reproduced in photographic medium by an artist. Would you consider that "pedophilic"?

Thats a different context. I think it is mostly portraying innocence. But some would still look at it and get aroused. Again, if it was a photo of kids bathing, its kind of cute. My mother has many pictures of me and my siblings bathing. But do I want her flashing those pictures in some art gallery? No. Why? Cause I don't want some pedophile coming and looking at pictures of me as a child naked.

Whereas I agree this is lousy art, I am not seeing the sexual content due to the nudity alone. If she was rubbing her cunt and moaning, that would be one thing. That would be fucking obscene and pornographic. She is doing nothing of that sort of sordid type.

I'm willing to bet that if there was some way to pass of a preteen girl "rubbing her cunt and moaning" as art, then someone would do it. probably this guy.
Did you look here:
http://www.news.com.au/gallery/0,23607,5031912-5010140-6,00.html
Number 6 looks like she may very well be masturbating, or screwing someone.
Number 4 also looks like an all fours position.

Also, let us make one distinguishing factor: These girls seem to be adolescents. As such, this is ephebophilia not pedophilia. The distinction is strong, as pedophilia is (rightfully) considered a very vicious sexual-pathological thing, whereas ephebophilia is hardly considered as such.

I see what you are saying here. looking at preteens is one thing, acting on it is another. But you ever notice how when you look at porn or see a chick get naked, you are much hornier that night? A person who is attracted sexually to underage people, be they a pedophile or a ephebophile are going to be more likely to act on their urges after looking at photos of naked preteens, due to intense arousal.

 

[Prince_James]

Skaught:

Thats a different context. I think it is mostly portraying innocence. But some would still look at it and get aroused. Again, if it was a photo of kids bathing, its kind of cute. My mother has many pictures of me and my siblings bathing. But do I want her flashing those pictures in some art gallery? No. Why? Cause I don't want some pedophile coming and looking at pictures of me as a child naked.

Clearly we don't want pedophiles getting off in art galleries or museums. We can agree there. But that being said, if the display is not meant to be sexual, is that really the intent? As with the painting I referenced, the display is meant to be beautiful (even if these photos fail) rather than sexual.

I'm willing to bet that if there was some way to pass of a preteen girl "rubbing her cunt and moaning" as art, then someone would do it. probably this guy.
Did you look here:
http://www.news.com.au/gallery/0,236...0140-6,00.html
Number 6 looks like she may very well be masturbating, or screwing someone.
Number 4 also looks like an all fours position.

I didn't see either of these pictures as necessarily obscene, or even suggestively so myself. I didn't see any masturbation/sex connotations there, and I even tend to have an amorous mind about those sort of things. No one had to tell me that Georgia O'Keefes flowers were vaginas.

I see what you are saying here. looking at preteens is one thing, acting on it is another. But you ever notice how when you look at porn or see a chick get naked, you are much hornier that night? A person who is attracted sexually to underage people, be they a pedophile or a ephebophile are going to be more likely to act on their urges after looking at photos of naked preteens, due to intense arousal.

I agree. But these girls are not children they are teenagers. Even if we do assume that we're dealing with sexually suggestive stuff, this is not exploitation of children as it were. Ephebophilia is not psychopathological in the sense that pedophilia is. It is pretty universally accepted that sixteen (these girls are 13) year old girls are sexually attractive and historically of marriagable age and such (in fact at 12 years old historically). But even so, this is not about portraying that. These pictures are not sexy enough to warrant that.

Yeah, if I went to an exhibit and saw a sweaty middle aged man with his hands in his pocket looking at pictures of six year old girls I'd be mad. But I don't think that the intent with the adolescent girls in these pictures is to give men masturbation material.

 

[Asguard]

i wonder if we would be having the same discussion if the pitures were of a guy of the same age?

 

[Bells]

interesting that you think 4 and 6 are the worst when they dont actually show ANYTHING, the one i posted shows more than that. My main problem is what will come next? the banning of the exerbition in the victorian musiam which shows naked modleds from birth to death just standing there with NOTHING covered because its a display of human development

It's not so much the nudity (or lack off) in those two censored images that made me raise an eyebrow. It was the expression on her face in both of them.

Lets just say a stranger on the street came up to you and asked you what you thought the person in those two pictures was doing and then showed you the photos.. you know nothing about who took the photo or what it is for.. What would you think she was doing at the time the picture was taken, judging by the pose and the expression on her face? Just at a glance?

Knowing what context the photos were taken in and what they are meant to represent can make us say that they aren't pornographic.. it's labeled as art and we just shrug and walk away. But if someone showed me those two photos and asked me what I thought she was doing in that image, without my knowing anything of her age or the artist involved? As I said before, it is the expression on her face that struck me the most. As well as the poses in both of those images. If I didn't know her age or the context in which the photos were taken, I'd think it was of a young woman in the throws of an orgasm.

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

Lets just say a stranger on the street came up to you and asked you what you thought the person in those two pictures was doing and then showed you the photos.. you know nothing about who took the photo or what it is for.. What would you think she was doing at the time the picture was taken, judging by the pose and the expression on her face? Just at a glance?

I can honestly say that in neither instance did I find any sexual connotation. And as noted, I even tend to view things erotically.

 

[Prince_James]

Asguard:

i wonder if we would be having the same discussion if the pitures were of a guy of the same age?

I don't know. There may be some discussion of the homosexual agenda in regards to that.

 

[skaught]

Skaught:
Clearly we don't want pedophiles getting off in art galleries or museums. We can agree there. But that being said, if the display is not meant to be sexual, is that really the intent? As with the painting I referenced, the display is meant to be beautiful (even if these photos fail) rather than sexual.

I think it is meant as a pervert being able to get away with taking pics of nude preteens and get away with in under the guise of "art"

I didn't see either of these pictures as necessarily obscene, or even suggestively so myself. I didn't see any masturbation/sex connotations there, and I even tend to have an amorous mind about those sort of things. No one had to tell me that Georgia O'Keefes flowers were vaginas.

Dude, when else would a naked girl be in those two positions??? :shrug:

I agree. But these girls are not children they are teenagers. Even if we do assume that we're dealing with sexually suggestive stuff, this is not exploitation of children as it were. Ephebophilia is not psychopathological in the sense that pedophilia is. It is pretty universally accepted that sixteen (these girls are 13) year old girls are sexually attractive and historically of marriagable age and such (in fact at 12 years old historically). But even so, this is not about portraying that. These pictures are not sexy enough to warrant that.

I'll agree 100%. I think girls are the most beautiful between ages of about 16-mid 20s.
But I still think portraying them in this context is accomplishing nothing. Other than what I have stated above.

Yeah, if I went to an exhibit and saw a sweaty middle aged man with his hands in his pocket looking at pictures of six year old girls I'd be mad. But I don't think that the intent with the adolescent girls in these pictures is to give men masturbation material.

I do think so. Like I said above, I think if this guy could get away with pictures of girls fucking themselves, he would. And I can guarantee you that even if his intent wasn't to exploit them and make masturbation material for pedophiles, well, pedophiles are still going to use it as that. And a pedophile that gets to look at pics of naked preteens and rub a few out is going to be more likely to go out and act on his impulses. Just like a recovering alcoholic is going to be much ore likely to drink if he/she spends time in bars.

 

[Asguard]

Bells i think its a matter of perception (as art always is). I must say my partner never looks like that when she orgasams
seriously though as i said i honestly felt it an expression of depression or sadness rather than anything sexually related. It actually put me in mind of a photo i saw of a street kid i once saw

 

[skaught]

i wonder if we would be having the same discussion if the pitures were of a guy of the same age?

I would, because when I worked at the bookstore, there were also books of preteen boys in the nude. Disgusted me just as much. Perhaps more so since I am a male who was taken advantage of once or twice.

 

[skaught]

It's not so much the nudity (or lack off) in those two censored images that made me raise an eyebrow. It was the expression on her face in both of them.

Lets just say a stranger on the street came up to you and asked you what you thought the person in those two pictures was doing and then showed you the photos.. you know nothing about who took the photo or what it is for.. What would you think she was doing at the time the picture was taken, judging by the pose and the expression on her face? Just at a glance?

Knowing what context the photos were taken in and what they are meant to represent can make us say that they aren't pornographic.. it's labeled as art and we just shrug and walk away. But if someone showed me those two photos and asked me what I thought she was doing in that image, without my knowing anything of her age or the artist involved? As I said before, it is the expression on her face that struck me the most. As well as the poses in both of those images. If I didn't know her age or the context in which the photos were taken, I'd think it was of a young woman in the throws of an orgasm.

THANK YOU!!!

 

[skaught]

Bells i think its a matter of perception (as art always is). I must say my partner never looks like that when she orgasams
seriously though as i said i honestly felt it an expression of depression or sadness rather than anything sexually related. It actually put me in mind of a photo i saw of a street kid i once saw

Like I said above:

Nothing turns a pedophile on like a depressed and vulnerable naked preteen.

 

[Prince_James]

Skaught:

Dude, when else would a naked girl be in those two positions???

Neither position looked as coital to me as suggested by you and Bell.

I'll agree 100%. I think girls are the most beautiful between ages of about 16-mid 20s.
But I still think portraying them in this context is accomplishing nothing. Other than what I have stated above.

I think it is evident that these pictures carry some degree of shock value, yes. I can see where he is "pushing our buttons" as a society.

I do think so. Like I said above, I think if this guy could get away with pictures of girls fucking themselves, he would. And I can guarantee you that even if his intent wasn't to exploit them and make masturbation material for pedophiles, well, pedophiles are still going to use it as that. And a pedophile that gets to look at pics of naked preteens and rub a few out is going to be more likely to go out and act on his impulses. Just like a recovering alcoholic is going to be much ore likely to drink if he/she spends time in bars.

Well again, let me return to the prior discussions:

If we are so worried about pedophilia to that extent, are we going to take down all the other paintings and such of this sort of subject matter?

I think we'd impoverish our cultural heritage if we did.

Even if we said "no more art of this subject" We'd be left with a great impoverishment. So long as the intent is not to tittilate, I think deviants have to not be considered.

 

[Asguard]

so you think the photo by a war reporter of a naked boy running down the street because some idiotic american had just dropped naparm on his village should be banned because it would turn on pediphiles?

 

[Asguard]

prince_james i have to say i would lement the day that sociaty did that. The demonisation of the human body would be compleate where any naked body was automatically ment to be sexual. it would be a very sad day

edit to add: ask a gynocologist if vagina's automatically turn them on. Arousal is directly related to what your body expects, for most people seeing a vagina means "Yippy, sex" however for a gynocologist it means "fuck more work"

i read an artical that men in either china or japan (cant rember which) used to get aroused by the sight of a womens ankles because women always kept them covered. I would suggest the same would go if wome always walked around with no shirts (look at africa, and aborigional comunites), then breasts would not be linked to sex at all but just a part of the body that is used to produce milk for babies. This is linked to the fact that now we have to have laws which makes it an offence to stop a women breast feeding in public because covering the body has made us to sensitised to a ridiculas level

 

[skaught]

Skaught:
Neither position looked as coital to me as suggested by you and Bell.

Then what do they suggest to you?

I think it is evident that these pictures carry some degree of shock value, yes. I can see where he is "pushing our buttons" as a society.

I can see where he is pushing my buttons.
I have a couple of questions for you:
Are you male/female?
Do you have kids?

Well again, let me return to the prior discussions:
If we are so worried about pedophilia to that extent, are we going to take down all the other paintings and such of this sort of subject matter?
I think we'd impoverish our cultural heritage if we did.
Even if we said "no more art of this subject" We'd be left with a great impoverishment. So long as the intent is not to tittilate, I think deviants have to not be considered.

Then let me also return to a prior discussion:

I don't have a problem with underage naked girls being depicted in art. Its the context they are portrayed in. In this context, it is nothing more than a picture of a nude preteen. It serves only one purpose... I'll leave that up to your imagination.

Thats a different context. I think it is mostly portraying innocence. But some would still look at it and get aroused. Again, if it was a photo of kids bathing, its kind of cute. My mother has many pictures of me and my siblings bathing. But do I want her flashing those pictures in some art gallery? No. Why? Cause I don't want some pedophile coming and looking at pictures of me as a child naked.

Context!

 

[skaught]

so you think the photo by a war reporter of a naked boy running down the street because some idiotic american had just dropped naparm on his village should be banned because it would turn on pediphiles?

Not even comparable. Thats a whole different context.

 

[skaught]

prince_james i have to say i would lement the day that sociaty did that. The demonisation of the human body would be compleate where any naked body was automatically ment to be sexual. it would be a very sad day

I agree 100%! That would be a sad day indeed. But it wouldn't be a sad day if all pictures/excuses for art that depicted nude preteens in a way that a fucking pervert can look at it and get a crazy idea in his head are taken away.