View Full Version : Nude Child Photography OK?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Thoreau
06-10-07, 08:25 PM
Do you believe that photographing children (under 18 y/o) in the nude, both male and female, purely from an artistic aspect, nothing sexual, is acceptable?

Whether yes or no, please explain.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 08:27 PM
No, because children can't give informed consent.

(God, that was quick. Succinct too.)


http://www.sciforums.com/images/statusicon/thread_lock.gif

Oniw17
06-10-07, 08:33 PM
Babies are born naked. As long as it's not kids having sex or something, I see nothing wrong.

Thoreau
06-10-07, 08:33 PM
No, because children can't give informed consent.

(God, that was quick. Succinct too.)


http://www.sciforums.com/images/statusicon/thread_lock.gif

What about someone who is old enough to choose for him or herself, such as a child that is 17 y/o for example?

Oniw17
06-10-07, 08:34 PM
What about someone who is old enough to choose for him or herself, such as a child that is 17 y/o for example?

Not a child in reality.

Thoreau
06-10-07, 08:37 PM
Not a child in reality.

Debatable but I see your point (which is why I modified the question specifically stating "under 18 y/o").

shorty_37
06-10-07, 08:47 PM
you need to be more age specific, when you say children...

Thoreau
06-10-07, 08:52 PM
you need to be more age specific, when you say children...

Again, see first post. When I say chidlren, i am referring to minors under the age of 18.

Oniw17
06-10-07, 08:57 PM
Do they have children in nudist societies? It's not that different.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:02 PM
Again, see first post. When I say chidlren, i am referring to minors under the age of 18.
I'd say 16 and over is OK, provided that the subject is fully aware of what they're participating in. Did you have a particular kind of 'artistic' photography in mind? Can you say what the purpose of taking the photographs is, ie what will be done with them? Or is the question more general than that?

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:09 PM
I'd say 16 and over is OK, provided that the subject is fully aware of what they're participating in. Did you have a particular kind of 'artistic' photography in mind? Can you say what the purpose of taking the photographs is, ie what will be done with them? Or is the question more general than that?

Much more general. I posted this question because I came across an interesting portfolio the other day that contained children in the nude. I myself see no problem with it. The contents of the photo's where completely non-sexual, mainly just emphasizing on the beauty of the natural human body. This particular portfolio had not just just children but adults alike. Overall, I believe it to be acceptable as long as there is no sexual connotation, or anything related to the sort.

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:10 PM
Since it is too broad and ill defined as to context, I'll say no.

Oniw17
06-10-07, 09:12 PM
Since it is too broad and ill defined as to context, I'll say no.

The post just before yours is pretty specific.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:14 PM
Ignore her. She's a dumbass.

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:17 PM
*its a sting operation, idoit*

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:21 PM
*its a sting operation, idoit*

LoL? What? Seems someone's a bit paranoid. Got a guilty conscience or something? lol Just pickin on ya samcdkey. And I will agree that I was pretty specific on this issue and its contents.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:22 PM
She's way too suspicious.

The context, sammy:

Much more general. I posted this question because I came across an interesting portfolio the other day that contained children in the nude. I myself see no problem with it. The contents of the photo's where completely non-sexual, mainly just emphasizing on the beauty of the natural human body. This particular portfolio had not just just children but adults alike. Overall, I believe it to be acceptable as long as there is no sexual connotation, or anything related to the sort.
Well?

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:22 PM
LoL? What? Seems someone's a bit paranoid. Got a guilty conscience or something? lol Just pickin on ya samcdkey. And I will agree that I was pretty specific on this issue and its contents.

Do I know you?:bugeye:

And no its not specific enough for me. To whom is this "art" directed? What is the purpose of this "art"?

Are the girls children sucking lolipops?:mad:

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:25 PM
And no its not specific enough for me. To whom is this "art" directed? What is the purpose of this "art"?
Does it matter? Are you implying that it's ok for "art buffs" to perv over kiddies but the rest of us can't?


Seconds to Cesspool: 3.. 2.. 1..

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:27 PM
samcdkey: Your thinking wayyy to much into this. This is a very general question. Like I said, there is no sexual innuendo or connotations. No girls sucking lollipops or anything of the sort. It is targeted to the general public, say, at an art museum for example. I repeat, THERE IS NOTHING SEXUAL ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:28 PM
Does it matter? Are you implying that it's ok for "art buffs" to perv over kiddies but the rest of us can't?


Seconds to Cesspool: 3.. 2.. 1..

Would you like to grow up and see a "portfolio" of yourself in the buff when you were too stupid young to know better?:bugeye:

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:28 PM
samcdkey: Your thinking wayyy to much into this. This is a very general question. Like I said, there is no sexual innuendo or connotations. No girls sucking lollipops or anything of the sort. It is targeted to the general public, say, at an art museum for example. I repeat, THERE IS NOTHING SEXUAL ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

You perv, I bet you hang around parks as well, with your oily smile and camera.:mad: :mad: :mad:

I'm reporting you to SVU, you freak.

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:29 PM
I don't see how I can get much more specific while keeping it a general question at the same time.

shorty_37
06-10-07, 09:30 PM
all this talk about pedophilia and now child nude photography is making me ill.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:32 PM
Would you like to grow up and see a "portfolio" of yourself in the buff when you were too stupid young to know better?:bugeye:
How 'stupid' 'young'?

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:32 PM
You perv, I bet you hang around parks as well, with your oily smile and camera.:mad: :mad: :mad:

I'm reporting you to SVU, you freak.

No, I am no freak or pedophile some shit like that. Drop the insults and threats and try to be a mature individual and have a decent conversation.

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:34 PM
So your saying that if a mother takes a picture of her child while bathing, that makes her a pedophile or a perv?

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:35 PM
Don't take offence. It's just her rather sneaky way of avoiding your perfectly sensible question.

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:35 PM
How 'stupid' 'young'?

Well I did some things in my teen years that don't bear repeating.

shorty_37
06-10-07, 09:35 PM
So your saying that if a mother takes a picture of her child while bathing, that makes her a pedophile or a perv?

I don't think you meant that by how i read this thread.

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:37 PM
No, I am no freak or pedophile some shit like that. Drop the insults and threats and try to be a mature individual and have a decent conversation.

Don't get your panties in a bunch; that was a forum wedgie; if you poke fun at me, I will take full retribution, y'know (for future reference):cool:

As to the question, it depends like I said on who is taking the picture and why. Personally I would not like nude pics of my kids in circulation (art or no art) with all the weirdos around.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:37 PM
Well I did some things in my teen years that don't bear repeating.
Well, that's what the teen years are for. Being sexually manipulated by creepy pervs in parks is a bit different obviously. So: complete ban on nude child photography under any circumstances, then?

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:37 PM
Don't take offence. It's just her rather sneaky way of avoiding your perfectly sensible question.

Tee Hee Brute?:bawl:

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:40 PM
Then you misinterpreted the question.

Again, this is a general question. There is absolutely 100% NOTHING sexual about this, so drop it! This question is purely from an artistic standpoint. If you are incapable of thinking from a NON-SEXUAL frame of mind, I strongly suggest that you refrain from posting again.

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:41 PM
Then you misinterpreted the question.

Again, this is a general question. There is absolutely 100% NOTHING sexual about this, so drop it! This question is purely from an artistic standpoint. If you are incapable of thinking from a NON-SEXUAL frame of mind, I strongly suggest that you refrain from posting again.

Bozo, it has nothing to do with your oh-so artistic question slash portfolio, but all the oily pervs rubbing themselves over that artistic portfolio.:rolleyes:

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:43 PM
Don't get your panties in a bunch; that was a forum wedgie; if you poke fun at me, I will take full retribution, y'know (for future reference):cool:

As to the question, it depends like I said on who is taking the picture and why. Personally I would not like nude pics of my kids in circulation (art or no art) with all the weirdos around.

I agree... I know I wouldn't want my kids to be photographed nude for the same reason, but thats my personal perefence and my right to choose as thier father. However, I do not have a problem with nude photography in general as long its completely non-sexual.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:44 PM
Bozo, it has nothing to do with your oh-so artistic question slash portfolio, but all the oily pervs rubbing themselves over that artistic portfolio.:rolleyes:
So: complete ban on nude child photography under any circumstances, then?

Waits. Waits more. Looks at watch. Resumes waiting..

redarmy11
06-10-07, 09:46 PM
I agree... I know I wouldn't want my kids to be photographed nude for the same reason, but thats my personal perefence and my right to choose as thier father. However, I do not have a problem with nude photography in general as long its completely non-sexual.
Sooo... you think it's ok for kids to be photographed as long as they're not your kids?

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:46 PM
I agree... I know I wouldn't want my kids to be photographed nude for the same reason, but thats my personal perefence and my right to choose as thier father. However, I do not have a problem with nude photography in general as long its completely non-sexual.

Well my policy is do unto others and all that, however it is still a free world so I wouldn't report anyone for taking nude pics of their children and sending it to the beautiful baby contest.

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 09:47 PM
So: complete ban on nude child photography under any circumstances, then?

Waits. Waits more. Looks at watch. Resumes waiting..

Except for my secret collection.

Thoreau
06-10-07, 09:53 PM
Sooo... you think it's ok for kids to be photographed as long as they're not your kids?

I believe it is acceptable with parental consent and parental knowledge. As far as if they were my kids... I've got mixed feelings. From a father point of view, I would be a little weary because of those who do find children sexually attractive and would not want MY children out there for the world to see. However, from an artistic point of view, I respect it and am able to see the beauty of the natural human body. I have not been in the position to choose for them to participate in nude photography therefore I cannot accurately say what my choice would be. Its a tough call.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 10:00 PM
I believe it is acceptable with parental consent and parental knowledge. As far as if they were my kids... I've got mixed feelings. From a father point of view, I would be a little weary because of those who do find children sexually attractive and would not want MY children out there for the world to see. However, from an artistic point of view, I respect it and am able to see the beauty of the natural human body. I have not been in the position to choose for them to participate in nude photography therefore I cannot accurately say what my choice would be. Its a tough call.
I agree with that more or less 100%. Not sure about this bit though:

I believe it is acceptable with parental consent and parental knowledge.
Suppose baby grows up and decides to charge mummy and daddy with abuse? It is, indeed, a tough call.

S.A.M.
06-10-07, 10:02 PM
I agree with that more or less 100%. Not sure about this bit though:

Suppose baby grows up and decides to charge mummy and daddy with abuse? It is, indeed, a tough call.

Frankly I would find it very uncomfortable if I went to a home where the parents showed me an artistic portfolio with nudes of their children; I am pretty sure I would not send my children to play there.

redarmy11
06-10-07, 10:13 PM
Frankly I would find it very uncomfortable if I went to a home where the parents showed me an artistic portfolio with nudes of their children; I am pretty sure I would not send my children to play there.
Oh right. I agree with that too. I'm all confused now.

Maybe it's just one of those things that's fine in principle but which just doesn't work in the real world. I can't really think of any circumstances where I could look at photos of nude kids and not have severe doubts about the entire process either, from production to display. And yet part of me knows that that's fucked up somehow, and that it shouldn't be that way.

Goddamn all you perverts out there for spoiling my theoretical appreciation of photos of nude kiddies. :mad:

Thoreau
06-10-07, 10:29 PM
Oh right. I agree with that too. I'm all confused now.

Maybe it's just one of those things that's fine in principle but which just doesn't work in the real world. I can't really think of any circumstances where I could look at photos of nude kids and not have severe doubts about the entire process either, from production to display. And yet part of me knows that that's fucked up somehow, and that it shouldn't be that way.

Goddamn all you perverts out there for spoiling my theoretical appreciation of photos of nude kiddies. :mad:

LoL. I think that one has to be mentally mature in order to fully appreciate the beauty of the natural human body without seeing it as a sexual display, despite whether the subject matter is a child or an adult. Many men see other men nude in the locker room and immediately look away. My thoughts are... Why? Yeah, we don't walk around nude all day and the concept of nudism isn't a common practice in the world, however the uncovered human body is who we natually are. We didn't come out of the womb wearing a pair of BVD's, some Wranglers and Nike's. It's a matter of acceptance. I accept that under all those clothes we wear all day, there is the natural human aspect, the way we were created.

vslayer
06-11-07, 12:08 AM
as long as they arent exploited its fine. theres certainly nothing sexual about the pictures my parents have of me playing in the pool naked when i was 3 or 4.

as for photos that are of a sexual nature, i think that that the legal age for that should be dropped to 16 to tie in with the legal age of consent.

Avatar
06-11-07, 12:33 AM
Decide for yourself: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ursylla/513357197/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ursylla/

James R
06-11-07, 02:50 AM
The important part of the poll question is the words "purely from an artistic point of view".

If naked images are produced and viewed purely as art, and not for sexual titillation, then I see no problem with them. The only potential concern would be to do with privacy of the individuals pictured, and appropriate permissions would have to be given.

TW Scott
06-11-07, 03:47 AM
Frankly I would find it very uncomfortable if I went to a home where the parents showed me an artistic portfolio with nudes of their children; I am pretty sure I would not send my children to play there.

Of course the occasional funny-naked-baby-laying-on-tummy-wearing-silly- glasses is okay and in fact if parents did not have these i would not let my kids play there as adults have no humor.

lucifers angel
06-11-07, 04:47 AM
its not art but i have got pictures of my kids in the bath, ok they were younger then they are now, and i dont have a lot, example my little one was doing somthing funny (and i mean hahaha funny) and i wanted to capture it, now they are older my oldest being 13 and 15 they are way to old for that now and i respect when they say "no"

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 05:31 AM
Of course the occasional funny-naked-baby-laying-on-tummy-wearing-silly- glasses is okay and in fact if parents did not have these i would not let my kids play there as adults have no humor.

What if the baby was 13 or 14?

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 05:31 AM
its not art but i have got pictures of my kids in the bath, ok they were younger then they are now, and i dont have a lot, example my little one was doing somthing funny (and i mean hahaha funny) and i wanted to capture it, now they are older my oldest being 13 and 15 they are way to old for that now and i respect when they say "no"

You mean if they did not say no, you would take nude pics of them at this age?

lucifers angel
06-11-07, 07:33 AM
You mean if they did not say no, you would take nude pics of them at this age?


no absolutley not, i shouldve expressed myself better, but i cant see anything wrong with perants taking pictures of small children in the bath, we have photo that we have taken on the beach with my son who was 5 at the time was running around naked, (the beach was quite and not many people were on it) i have never had a problem with nuditie why should i?

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 07:51 AM
i dont care either way, aslong as the child says its ok then i dont mind. lets tell animals to wear clothes because it offends me alot.



peace.

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 07:53 AM
i dont care either way, aslong as the child says its ok then i dont mind. lets tell animals to wear clothes because it offends me alot.



peace.

Its simply disgusting the way my male rats expose themselves to me.:mad:

http://www.ratbehavior.org/images/SnipHeldUp.jpg

lucifers angel
06-11-07, 08:13 AM
Its simply disgusting the way my male rats expose themselves to me.:mad:

http://www.ratbehavior.org/images/SnipHeldUp.jpg

yeah that is disgustng! :eek:

is that your pet rat?

phlogistician
06-11-07, 08:16 AM
To clarify the OP, what is 'art'?

But generally, I'd say no. Parents having a pic of their own kids on the hearth rug is one thing. Pictures of kids you have no relation too begs too many questions.

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 08:17 AM
yeah that is disgustng! :eek:

is that your pet rat?

No, my rats (who I chop for experimental purposes) are way more cute!!!

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1475/img03636lthl3.th.jpg
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4210/img0788li9.th.jpg

phonetic
06-11-07, 08:34 AM
Family albums and what have you seems reasonable to me. As long as the kid is young. There's a few pics of me butt naked when I was younger, getting washed or whatever. I think once a kid is over 4 or 5 it's not that good an idea though. Circulating the picture as art doesn't sit too well with me if the genitals are visible. If it's a side on or behind shot, then I suppose it's alright, but it's a bit of a grey area and I'd rather people didn't do it.

Pubescent kids - definitely a no-no. Young kids and babies, as long as you're not dressing them up in makeup and putting them in sexual poses, why not?

These days it's just too fucked up a thing to be doing, for anyone, even parents. It's not worth the risk, especially.

So, I'll say No.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:39 AM
Its simply disgusting the way my male rats expose themselves to me.:mad:

http://www.ratbehavior.org/images/SnipHeldUp.jpg

yes they need to put some clothes on the dirty little bastards. they were raised in a barn.

peace.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:41 AM
humans are stupid.


peace.

John99
06-11-07, 08:45 AM
Family photos are one thing (toddlers in tubs etc.), if for example some slob photographed me and my ass without caring about my consent at around 14 and called it 'art' while whacking off or for profit i would hunt the person down and throw him a beating for a few hours...at least anyway. It would be my right.

Sure, the easiest way to look at it is they did not get consent (18 years old for consent) to satisfy their perversions so i wouldnt need consent to kick their ass.

darksidZz
06-11-07, 09:43 AM
Looks like I missed this thread :shrug:

As for not being right to see younger kids naked... I will tell you this...

As a man I'm not really disagreeing with the idea of seeing a young 15 year old girl naked. Infact James R I would say Art like a photo of this is meant solely for arousal, otherwise why have them nude? Nude photos are meant to entice and excite... that is where their art comes from...

Now for heavens sake do I like watching 15 year olds naked? Only if they look 17 :C~ I don't really think if they appear older it's wrong, after-all who could guess then... but anyway for anyone interested I've recently found out a really weird thing.. it would seem that in other countries nude photos of children are not so easily attacked, you can see many if you type in "nudiest photos" or the like. I was pretty surprised because I don't understand what makes it legal just cuz they're on a nudiest beach or whateve, but ehh..

15, 16, 17 year olds are all there for your eyes... be careful though cuz it's really more depressing than exciting... you are depressed to see what you once had, youth, then depressed equally cuz they seem to be havin more fun than you ever did :p My life sucks... god.......

.....

John99
06-11-07, 09:49 AM
Suppose somene took YOU (an adult) and forced you to pose with your weenie out in spite of your protests?

The subject needs to have the ability to make an informed decision, without this it is a violation of their rights. So by the time the subject is capable of articulating a decision it would be too late.

Avatar
06-11-07, 09:51 AM
Why are we discussing family photos and rats? The question is clearly about art.
Any way I think it's alright while it's art and not pornography.
For example I like this pic: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/513357197_a0b5f06852.jpg?v=0

darksidZz
06-11-07, 09:57 AM
Why are we discussing family photos and rats? The question is clearly about art.
Any way I think it's alright while it's art and not pornography.
For example I like this pic: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/513357197_a0b5f06852.jpg?v=0

Horrible, horrible!!!!

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 09:57 AM
Why are we discussing family photos and rats? The question is clearly about art.
Any way I think it's alright while it's art and not pornography.
For example I like this pic: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/513357197_a0b5f06852.jpg?v=0

Whats the line?

Avatar
06-11-07, 10:00 AM
Pornography is made with the intention to arise a sexual desire for the subject.

darksidZz
06-11-07, 10:08 AM
Pornography is made with the intention to arise a sexual desire for the subject.

So are the nude art photos and stuff :L The point is to make them as sexy as one can...

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 10:09 AM
Pornography is made with the intention to arise a sexual desire for the subject.

With the assumption that nudity does not? Rather a sweeping generalisation of all people :shrug:

Avatar
06-11-07, 10:17 AM
That's the definition of pornography. The other opposite of it is an epiphany.
A nude photo can be an epiphany as well as pornography. The difference is in the intention which manifests in the execution.


So are the nude art photos and stuff :L The point is to make them as sexy as one can...
You're not a particularly healthy individual, I imagine even a naked rat could make you sexually aroused. :p
Any way, to be serious, did the pic I posted looked pornographic to you?

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 10:19 AM
That's the definition of pornography. The other opposite of it is an epiphany.
A nude photo can be an epiphany as well as pornography. The difference is in the intention which manifests in the execution.


Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? I suppose so; I would hate to have nude pictures of my kids in circulation though.

Avatar
06-11-07, 10:21 AM
Same question as I asked darksizz for you: did the pic I posted looks pornographic to you?
If not, then there's your line.
In your mind as well as in the mind of the artist.

John99
06-11-07, 10:31 AM
Pornography is made with the intention to arise a sexual desire for the subject.


Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? I suppose so; I would hate to have nude pictures of my kids in circulation though.

That is a good point Sam. Avatar's pic and viewpoint are understandable but the inability to consent on the part of the subject is vital to this subject and supercedes any assumption.

If every person were willing to be photographed with their genitals out i suppose this would not be an issue, since this is NOT the case we are making decisions for another person based on assumption...AND how do we gauge what is 'ART' and what is a violation of a persons rights:shrug: or specifically porn.

This is the essence of dictaTORIAL THOUGHT.

Avatar
06-11-07, 10:35 AM
Tell me of a subject where's there a total consent among all of humanity?
Or at least an absolute majority consent?
Piracy, slavery, genocide and a few other jus cogens (ius cogens) norms.

John99
06-11-07, 10:40 AM
Tell me of a subject where's there a total consent among all of humanity?
Or at least an absolute majority consent?
Piracy, slavery, genocide and a few other jus cogens (ius cogens) norms.

I am not following you, we are talking about INDIVIDUAL consent...maybe that is part of the problem. All people are not the same, but then I am not a socialist.

Avatar
06-11-07, 10:45 AM
What about the consent? If a person is made to pose naked against his or her wish it's a criminal offense in most countries.
But if the parents of the kid allow it and the kid also has no problems with that, there's no legal problem, or a problem of consent.

John99
06-11-07, 10:54 AM
Kids would not 'have a problem' doing many things that are not in their best interest.

The notion of art is being bastardised anyway...lets not kid ourselves.

Avatar
06-11-07, 10:58 AM
You didn't read what I wrote.

if the parents of the kid allow it and the kid also has no problems with that

The notion of art is being bastardised anyway...lets not kid ourselves.
No idea what you are talking about.

phonetic
06-11-07, 10:59 AM
Kids would not 'have a problem' doing many things that are not in their best interest.

The notion of art is being bastardised anyway...lets not kid ourselves.

Mmm, Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst come to mind..

John99
06-11-07, 11:08 AM
the question is:

is it art or an object?

assuming art requires ability beyond what is considered average.

lucifers angel
06-11-07, 11:09 AM
the question is:

is it art or an object?


to have it posted in a gallery isnt right, especially if the children cannot give they're concent, however family snaps like the ones i was talking about are fine.

John99
06-11-07, 11:12 AM
to have it posted in a gallery isnt right, especially if the children cannot give they're concent, however family snaps like the ones i was talking about are fine.

ah, your too sweet to be lucifers angel.;)

Avatar
06-11-07, 11:14 AM
Art is art, as music is music,
if you don't know what is art for you, I can not help.

John99
06-11-07, 11:26 AM
Art is art, as music is music,
if you don't know what is art for you, I can not help.

I allready said this:

assuming art requires ability beyond what is considered average.

Do you see photogrphy as having some artistic qualities or at the same level of a master painter. Music is art, given the criteria established above the musicians would have to know how to play well.

John99
06-11-07, 11:35 AM
at the same time is sfumato an illusion or is it something more?

Avatar
06-11-07, 11:35 AM
Painting is different than photography as fish are different from birds, but they both are animals. Painting and photography both require skill, training and talent; the tools are different that's all.
I personally know both good painters, musicians and semi-pro photographers.

For example this photo is both nude and art: http://www.flickr.com/photos/quizz/194624980/
So is this, though not nude: http://www.flickr.com/photos/quizz/255761455/

John99
06-11-07, 11:40 AM
Painting is different than photography as fish are different from birds, but they both are animals. Painting and photography both require skill, training and talent; the tools are different that's all.
I personally know both good painters, musicians and semi-pro photographers.

For example this photo is both nude and art: http://www.flickr.com/photos/quizz/194624980/
So is this, though not nude: http://www.flickr.com/photos/quizz/255761455/

The problem, for me, is you can get lucky with a photograph but not with a painting...i know a enough about photography and can tell you i can put a camera into the hands of an inexperienced child and get an image that would be quite good. Even if it was one out of a hundred it would not matter.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/quizz/255761455/

That is a nice image, maybe a little overprocessed. As far as the 'nude' photo, i never said i have a problem with the human body or its image.

lucifers angel
06-11-07, 11:55 AM
ah, your too sweet to be lucifers angel.;)


why thankyou, dont think ive ever been called sweet before!!! :)

the black and white photo is art! i like it!

Avatar
06-11-07, 11:55 AM
If that were true, all art photography galleries would be overwhelmed with works by children, but they are not.
It takes more than a lucky shot in the dark to be an artist.

lucifers angel
06-11-07, 12:18 PM
ah, your too sweet to be lucifers angel.;)

now that i am thinking about it i cant see whats the differance between nude photos now, when famous artisits used to paint them years ago

Thoreau
06-11-07, 06:00 PM
Here are a few more examples... what do you think? Art or Not? Please view entire album.

WARNING! CONTAINS NUDITY! IF YOU ARE OFFENDED ANY WAY BY NUDITY, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO NOT VIEW THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS! YOU MAY FIND THEM TO BE EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL!

http://www.will-mcbride-art.com/in/phi.html

http://free.ipdz.com/bfaucon/index.html

pjdude1219
06-11-07, 06:23 PM
its only recently that its been considered taboo if you don't believe me go look at the album cover for blind faith

kmguru
06-11-07, 06:25 PM
I repeat, THERE IS NOTHING SEXUAL ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

The law says, if some one gets sexual pleasure out of a picture that is of a minor, that is against the law even if it looks innocent to you and me.

Think about what happened to Pseudoephridine hydrochloride, they banned it because someone is making drugs out of it. They are banning OTC drug DHEA, because the old people feel better without Viagra (a controlled substance).

Only the law enforcement people and doctors are allowed to have such picture in the name of law.

So, get over it....unless you are in Africa.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 06:30 PM
if the child is old enough to know what he/she is doing then i see no difference in an adult or a child doing it.

i dont actualy care either way because im not offended by much that my eyes see. if a child is forced to pose naked or dressed for a picture it is wrong, simply because you ar forcing a child to do something that is not needed for him to survive in this world,

if a child wants to pose for pictures then i dont see why he/she is not allowed to do so, we as modern humans have so many issues and problems with things that it is not natural or healthy, we are so caught up with morals and ethics that we forget what is natural,

if we went back a few thousand years i doubt anybody would care who was naked, be it a child or an adult, but nowdays people wont let anybody be naked in public, even though it is perfectly natural for us to be naked we are told not to do it, just because some people dont like it,

lots of people have to deal with things they dont like, but when it comes down to bieng natural its not allowed, women are not even allowed to breast feed in ublic in many places either. the modern world is utterly stupid with these morals of right and wrong,

we cant do many things that are natural in public, we cant have sex, we cant be naked, we cant breast feed, we cant hunt, whats next? we wont be able to eat with our mouths open?.

peace.

Thoreau
06-11-07, 06:56 PM
I tried looking up U.S. laws on the subject but I couldn't find anything.

Thoreau
06-11-07, 07:01 PM
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines "Child pornography" as:

"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 07:15 PM
so beig naked is ok then, because thats not sexual its just normal,

peace.

Baron Max
06-11-07, 07:45 PM
so beig naked is ok then, because thats not sexual its just normal,...

Yeah, I guess so ...and after you take the "artistic" pictures, you can sell them to all the pedophiles in town, or post them on the "pedophiles-R-Us.com" or something like that, right?

Baron Max

superluminal
06-11-07, 07:56 PM
Jseus H. Christ on a fucking stick. The psychosis we seem to have about a human body is just amazing.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:11 PM
Jseus H. Christ on a fucking stick. The psychosis we seem to have about a human body is just amazing.

it will be taboo to be born soon.

peace.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:11 PM
Yeah, I guess so ...and after you take the "artistic" pictures, you can sell them to all the pedophiles in town, or post them on the "pedophiles-R-Us.com" or something like that, right?

Baron Max

if its in the name of art then anything is ok.

peace.

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:14 PM
What's the cure for a pedophile? A pedo-cure! Get it? Huh? Huh? :D :D

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:15 PM
it will be taboo to be born soon.

peace.
Doctors will be required to avert their eyes and work entirely by feel.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:18 PM
Doctors will be required to avert their eyes and work entirely by feel.

no they might touch a penis and be put in jail for sexual abuse, and forget about slapping the baby on the ass, that will land you a 10 year sentance.

want to film your childs birth? think again thats obviously child pornography,

peace.

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:20 PM
no they might touch a penis and be put in jail for sexual abuse, and forget about slapping the baby on the ass, that will land you a 10 year sentance.

want to film your childs birth? think again thats obviously child pornography,

peace.
My god! You're right! Doctors are total pervs.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:28 PM
My god! You're right! Doctors are total pervs.

exactly, all midwifes doctors and nurses should not be allowed within 500 yards of a baby at any time.

and any baby that is born naked will be convicted of streaking and fined up to 1000 dollars or pounds. refusing to pay the fine will result in jail time of up to 3 years. in a newborn detention center.

peace.

peace.

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:31 PM
exactly, all midwifes doctors and nurses should not be allowed within 500 yards of a baby at any time.

and any baby that is born naked will be convicted of streaking and fined up to 1000 dollars or pounds. refusing to pay the fine will result in jail time of up to 3 years. in a newborn detention center.

peace.

peace.
I like the way you think.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:36 PM
I like the way you think.

what are we going to do about penis operations?

peace.

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:37 PM
what are we going to do about penis operations?

peace.
Preprogrammed, AI penisbots!

John99
06-11-07, 08:42 PM
no they might touch a penis and be put in jail for sexual abuse, and forget about slapping the baby on the ass, that will land you a 10 year sentance.

want to film your childs birth? think again thats obviously child pornography,

peace.

Well let me ask you this then,

Scenario one:

You are 15 years old, you have poison ivy on your member. You got to the doctor's, one is female the other is male BOTH examine you.

Is there a differance to you?

Which doctor will you remember the most?

Scenario two:

You have two choices-

Choice one + Gynecologist
Choice two + Proctologist for men

Pick one.


if the child is old enough to know what he/she is doing then i see no difference in an adult or a child doing it.

I still make bad decisions. I think your wrong.

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:44 PM
You are 15 years old, you have poison ivy on your member. You got to the doctor's, one is female the other is male BOTH examine you.

...

Which doctor will you remember the most?

The hot lady doctor who I will wack-off to for the next month.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:46 PM
Preprogrammed, AI penisbots!

but wont the bots turn into pervs? pedo-bots?


peace.

John99
06-11-07, 08:48 PM
The hot lady doctor who I will wack-off to for the next month.

ha ha ha. no kidding?

Mine was Chinese:o

TW Scott
06-11-07, 08:49 PM
What if the baby was 13 or 14?

Months is fine. and actually what I meant

Years would be kinda kooky, but if the kid gave permission and were not exposed then it isn't a great travesty, but still not anything i would do.

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 08:50 PM
I think this thread is proof that for some people nudity is equivalent to sexual display.

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:50 PM
but wont the bots turn into pervs? pedo-bots?


peace.
No, because they will have anti-pedo routines built in that will instantly cause them to sever their own heads off if they start to get turned on while performing delicate penis surgery. It's worth losing a penis here and there if it means one less perverted robot in the world...

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:52 PM
I think this thread is proof that for some people nudity is equivalent to sexual display.
In the highly repressed west, it almost exclusively is viewed as equivalent.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:52 PM
Well let me ask you this then,

Scenario one:

You are 15 years old, you have poison ivy on your member. You got to the doctor's, one is female the other is male BOTH examine you.

Is there a differance to you?

Which doctor will you remember the most?

Scenario two:

You have two choices-

Choice one + Gynecologist
Choice two + Proctologist for men

Pick one.



I still make bad decisions. I think your wrong.


when i was 15 i was in jail, and as far as i knew there was no poison ive there, but lets just say there was, i would get sent to the hospital wing, and there was a hot women doctor there, i would let her treat my penis anyday. i would put the ivy on my "member" myself if i knew she would rub some healing cream on it for me.


am i allowed to be examined in a gynecologist place? and what exactly do you not agree with? you are entitled to your own opinion. i dont expect you to be an agree-bot,


peace.

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:54 PM
agree-bot,

Heh.

S.A.M.
06-11-07, 08:54 PM
In the highly repressed west, it almost exclusively is viewed as equivalent.

Werd

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:55 PM
No, because they will have anti-pedo routines built in that will instantly cause them to sever their own heads off if they start to get turned on while performing delicate penis surgery. It's worth losing a penis here and there if it means one less perverted robot in the world...

i like these anti pedo-bots you speak of, but what about the knives that they use? they will touch the penis in the opp, so the scaple is a pervert.

maybe we should use laser cutting tech? im not sure if lasers can be perverts i will have to do some research.

peace

superluminal
06-11-07, 08:56 PM
Werd
Yep. Weird even.

;)

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 08:58 PM
Yep. Weird even.

;)

i thought she was bieng gangster for a secont like "word nigga"


peace.

superluminal
06-11-07, 09:00 PM
...im not sure if lasers can be perverts i will have to do some research.

peace
I assure you that lasers (which are just beams of photons) can indeed be perverts. They must be watched carefully. The images some photons convey to unsuspecting innocent eyes, that happen to be in their way as they are emitted from certain magazines and web pages, are appallingly perverted.

superluminal
06-11-07, 09:00 PM
i thought she was bieng gangster for a secont like "word nigga"


peace.
Maybe she was? :shrug:

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 09:06 PM
I assure you that lasers (which are just beams of photons) can indeed be perverts. They must be watched carefully. The images some photons convey to unsuspecting innocent eyes, that happen to be in their way as they are emitted from certain magazines and web pages, are appallingly perverted.

so we cant trust lasers either then. what about that new tech the high pressure water cutting machine?


i know water is a pervert in mass spread out form, like the way water molests women in the swimming pool, with its dirty hands all over every part of them. thats rape in my opinion because water can seep into the vagina and thats intercourse without consent, and its child molesting also,

so i guess not even water cutting is allowed, so what can we do everything is a pervert.


peace.

superluminal
06-11-07, 09:10 PM
, so what can we do everything is a pervert.

peace.
We're doomed.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-11-07, 09:17 PM
We're doomed.

im afraid so.


peace.

Thoreau
06-11-07, 10:00 PM
Well guys and gals, I am glad we were able to be able to discuss this in a mature and civilized manner despite the rough start. By no means is this the end of this thread so please feel free to continue the conversation. I just thought I'd stop by and let you all know my appreciation for your participation.

Bells
06-11-07, 10:04 PM
I have taken several photos and films of my kids naked. There is nothing sexual about them. Most of them are when they have just been taken out of the bath and are lying on their towels giggling like little lunatics:).

There is a perception in society that the naked form is automatically sexual. It is not. I don't view a 2 year old doing a nudie run through the house as being sexual. Children like being naked. If I let my 21 month old, he would be naked all the time. As it is we have to chase him through the house to get him dressed after his bath.

Nude photography of children is not perverted if it is done innocently and is not sexually orientated. However some who view these images are perverted.

For example, Anne Geddes made a lot of money taking photos of babies in the nude. I doubt the average person would view them as being in any way pornographic.http://www.annegeddes.com/home/galleries/privateCollection/privateCollection2.aspx

phlogistician
06-12-07, 03:47 AM
I think this thread is proof that for some people nudity is equivalent to sexual display.

Well yes, and 'some' people will find innocuous pictures of children arousing. Are we comfortable providing them with such material?

Not that I agree that it's possible to have innocuous naked pictures of someone elses children in the first place of course.

I think simply it's best to err on the side of caution. Artists without talent need controversy. Talented artists should be able to make us sit up and think
without brushing against the limits of common decency.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-12-07, 07:38 AM
my grandmother was refused collection of her photos of my cousins in the bath after they were developed, years back.

the police were called and she was questioned over child pornogoraphy. this was infront of tens of customers in london, and everyone thought she was a pedo. and she never even recieved so much as a "sorry".


peace.

lucifers angel
06-12-07, 02:06 PM
my grandmother was refused collection of her photos of my cousins in the bath after they were developed, years back.

the police were called and she was questioned over child pornogoraphy. this was infront of tens of customers in london, and everyone thought she was a pedo. and she never even recieved so much as a "sorry".


peace.


thats awful!!

its sad because now we are all seen has pedo's becuase PC people say that we shouldnt take pictures of babies in the bath

kmguru
06-12-07, 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by EmptyForceOfChi
my grandmother was refused collection of her photos of my cousins in the bath after they were developed, years back.

Everyone knows that English have serious problems regarding sex. They forced that value in India, Japan etc. And now, America is heading that way.

BTW, taking photograpghs of nude children in India is not a problem as long as it is not used by sexual deviants. Then they could be stoned to death....ouch...

pjdude1219
06-12-07, 04:49 PM
it has to do with the inversion of the us out look toward nudityand sex compared to violence and the rest of the idustrial world most coutries find american tolerance to violence appaling and our fear of sex and nudity repressed.

superluminal
06-12-07, 04:57 PM
Well yes, and 'some' people will find innocuous pictures of children arousing. Are we comfortable providing them with such material?

Not that I agree that it's possible to have innocuous naked pictures of someone elses children in the first place of course.

I think simply it's best to err on the side of caution. Artists without talent need controversy. Talented artists should be able to make us sit up and think
without brushing against the limits of common decency.
'some' people find innocous images of lawn mowers arousing. Ban pictures of lawn mowers.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-12-07, 05:37 PM
thats awful!!

its sad because now we are all seen has pedo's becuase PC people say that we shouldnt take pictures of babies in the bath

yeah she was really upset by it, she came home crying and could never go back there because of the shame.

i understand that people have to check about child porn and stuff, but they handled it so wrong, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but she was basicaly branded a pedo before they even asked her questions to find out what was going on,


and to do it infront of all those other customers was very bad of them in my opinion,


peace.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-12-07, 05:42 PM
Everyone knows that English have serious problems regarding sex. They forced that value in India, Japan etc. And now, America is heading that way.

BTW, taking photograpghs of nude children in India is not a problem as long as it is not used by sexual deviants. Then they could be stoned to death....ouch...

actualy england is not as bad as the US about this type of thing. in the usa your not even allowed to show naked people during regular hours, in the uk any bodypart is allowed to be shown aslong as its scientific or educational,

i think erect penis and the clit are only parts not allowed to be shown at regular hours before 9 pm,

england and the usa are very bad when it comes to sexual conduct on television though, we allow violence, war killing fighting and all types of brutal behaviour, even on childrens cartoon shows, but when it comes to natural sex or bad language, we have to hide that from the innocent eyes of the populous,


we have screwed up ethics in this day and age. we are heading for the banishment of everything natural with the human species, no breast feeding, no being naked, no sex, whats next?

peace.

ashpwner
06-12-07, 05:47 PM
i voted no, not cuase i'm against it just i don't trust pedophiles.

phonetic
06-12-07, 06:24 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6744871.stm


An Annan man has admitted a hammer attack on a heart transplant patient he had wrongly identified as a paedophile.

The court heard that Mr Todd, a keen photographer, was planning to take pictures of a lunar eclipse on the evening of the assault and had his camera set up outside.

=/

Baron Max
06-12-07, 07:39 PM
i voted no, not cuase i'm against it just i don't trust pedophiles.

What? Do most of 'em have "Pedo" tatooed on their foreheads? How do you know who's a pedo before they're caught and convicted????

Baron Max

Baron Max
06-12-07, 07:41 PM
"The court heard that Mr Todd, a keen photographer, was planning to take pictures of a lunar eclipse on the evening of the assault and had his camera set up outside."

Hmm, good excuse! And the court believed it?? Wow, thanks for the tip! :D

Baron Max

phlogistician
06-13-07, 04:04 AM
'some' people find innocous images of lawn mowers arousing. Ban pictures of lawn mowers.


Yes, I think we should to counter the very real and concerning spate of lawnmower molestation. Abstaction to absurdity tactic, makes you absurd, dude.

Avatar
06-13-07, 04:07 AM
So how about nude sheep photos in Australia and Scotland?

phlogistician
06-13-07, 07:26 AM
So how about nude sheep photos in Australia and Scotland?


I think full frontal shaven pictures like this may arouse some people, ...!!

http://ars.sdstate.edu/shearing/sheep%20shearing%20scan.jpg

leopold
06-13-07, 08:21 AM
. . . . mainly just emphasizing on the beauty of the natural human body.
isn't this the same ruse playboy uses?

there is a website called "simply nudes" that profess the same rhetoric "the natural beauty of women" bullshit.

the ONLY nude photographs of naked children that are acceptable are private photos, you know, 3 year olds splashing in the bath for their mommy.

what kills me is that half of you think it's acceptable on a non private basis.

superluminal
06-13-07, 05:15 PM
I think that the people that are so upset by the idea of naked kid pictures are more upset that they might find them arousing.

It's a fucking human body people. We only cover it because it got too cold and we lost too much body hair along the way.

People that like kiddies can get their rocks off with swimsuit flyers that come in the mail or anything else of the sort. Nude anything photography is ok as long as a responsible person (and the kid) agrees to it. Meh.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 05:16 PM
I think that the people that are so upset by the idea of naked kid pictures are more upset that they might find them arousing.

It's a fucking human body people. We only cover it because it got too cold and we lost too much body hair along the way.

People that like kiddies can get their rocks off with swimsuit flyers that come in the mail or anything else of the sort. Nude anything photography is ok as long as a responsible person (and the kid) agrees to it. Meh.

Pervert.:mad:

superluminal
06-13-07, 05:18 PM
Pervert.:mad:
Bite it, spinster.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 05:20 PM
Bite it, spinster.

Spinster means never been married. Doesn't apply. :p

superluminal
06-13-07, 05:22 PM
Spinster means never been married. Doesn't apply. :p
OK. Bite it, she-devil.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 05:23 PM
OK. Bite it, she-devil.

May Allah guide you onto the path of righteousness. :itold: :spank:

Cease and desist from taking nude pictures of children, infidel.

superluminal
06-13-07, 05:26 PM
May Allah guide you onto the path of righteousness. :itold: :spank:

Cease and desist from taking nude pictures of children, infidel.
I will take pictures of whatever I wan't while I'm nude. I took a nude picture of a UFO the other day. I was only nude because they abducted me and "probed" me. I hate aliens.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 05:33 PM
I will take pictures of whatever I wan't while I'm nude. I took a nude picture of a UFO the other day. I was only nude because they abducted me and "probed" me. I hate aliens.

You can't provide legitimacy to your perverted hobbies by running around with flapping dickies, even if you are holding a camera in your hand.:mad:

superluminal
06-13-07, 05:36 PM
You can't provide legitimacy to your perverted hobbies by running around with flapping dickies, even if you are holding a camera in your hand.:mad:
But I can provide hours of entertainment to the general public and show them how a Real ManTM flaps his dickie.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 05:45 PM
But I can provide hours of entertainment to the general public and show them how a Real ManTM flaps his dickie.

I do believe a lot of (wo)men would already be familiar with the phenomenon of Real MenTM with floppy dickies, especially at inopportune times.:itold:

And its not at all entertaining, the reverse, in fact. :(

superluminal
06-13-07, 05:47 PM
I do believe a lot of (wo)men would already be familiar with the phenomenon of Real MenTM with floppy dickies, especially at inopportune times.:( :itold:
Ah, but there's a not-so-subtle difference between a floppy dickie and a flapping dickie. Especially at appropriate times.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 05:51 PM
Ah, but there's a not-so-subtle difference between a floppy dickie and a flapping dickie. Especially at appropriate times.

I see a hitherto invisible reason emerging for the camera in hand. Its the sheep, isn't it? :bawl:

superluminal
06-13-07, 07:15 PM
I see a hitherto invisible reason emerging for the camera in hand. Its the sheep, isn't it? :bawl:
See. There's a reason for everything... :D

EmptyForceOfChi
06-13-07, 07:19 PM
lol that was a good read.. who could have guessed that a child pornography thread could be so much fun to read.

peace.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 07:51 PM
lol that was a good read.. who could have guessed that a child pornography thread could be so much fun to read.

peace.

Pervert :mad:

superluminal
06-13-07, 07:57 PM
Bite him, you evil nutritional scientist from, ummm, muslim hell. May your LDL be high and your HDL be low. Bah.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-13-07, 08:12 PM
Pervert :mad:

thats racial discrimination.


peace.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 08:15 PM
thats racial discrimination.

peace.
Are you saying there is a biological basis for perversion?

Please cite your sources?

EmptyForceOfChi
06-13-07, 08:35 PM
Are you saying there is a biological basis for perversion?

Please cite your sources?

heres a link. http://megnetwork.com/just%20joking_final%20global.jpg

peace.

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 08:40 PM
heres a link. http://megnetwork.com/just%20joking_final%20global.jpg

peace.

That does not have appropriate citations. Please support your claim with peer reviewed data.:mad:

John99
06-13-07, 09:15 PM
Spinster means never been married. Doesn't apply. :p

Perhaps it is not your own opinions you incessantly post but the remnants of a past life.:p

S.A.M.
06-13-07, 09:20 PM
Perhaps it is not your own opinions you incessantly post but the remnants of a past life.:p

Huh? :confused:

John99
06-13-07, 09:22 PM
he he he - we wont go there.

your too cute Spam.

leopold
06-13-07, 09:27 PM
Nude anything photography is ok as long as a responsible person (and the kid) agrees to it. Meh.
you're a real riot.
have any idea what makes a contract binding?

EmptyForceOfChi
06-14-07, 08:06 AM
you're a real riot.
have any idea what makes a contract binding?

a shake of the hand?


peace.

EmptyForceOfChi
06-14-07, 08:06 AM
That does not have appropriate citations. Please support your claim with peer reviewed data.:mad:

does not compute.


peace.

superluminal
06-14-07, 05:19 PM
you're a real riot.
have any idea what makes a contract binding?
Epoxy?

kb5fjx
10-13-07, 06:20 PM
In this day and age that is simply not a yes or no question. In times past, an innocent photo of a new born baby was commonplace. I have some of those in my childhood photo book.

Now days taking a roll of film to a processing studio with such a photo on the negatives could get you thrown in jail.

I have taken a photo of my niece during a summer visit on digital format in a bath tub full of bubble bath and all you can see is her head, I feel this type of photo is fine, as did her parents and other family.

Photographing children in the nude now days just for the sake of art is not well accepted in out society. I have read horror stories in the news papers and on the net where a father or mother has taken in film for development with an innocent photo of a child running around in the house or at the beach nude and the police where call and charges ensued.

I am a professional photographer myself and I stay away from such photos. A photo of a fully clothed child is just as artistic, with out all the possible headaches that could arise if it was a nude photo.

kmguru
10-13-07, 10:45 PM
Well said....Life is too short...there is no reason to put your finger in a live light socket!

Gustav
10-14-07, 11:45 PM
pardon
please put up some pictorials
i need to make an informed judgement

Gustav
10-15-07, 12:16 AM
A guy is walking into a forest holding a young girl by the hand.

"I'm scared" the young girl says.

"*You're* scared?" says the man. "I have to walk out of here by myself."

Facial
10-15-07, 12:17 AM
IMO, kiddie porn is acceptable only when the subject of the photograph turns 18 and agrees to release the photo of him/herself. Otherwise it is exploitation of children.

Exhumed
10-15-07, 12:20 AM
IMO, kiddie porn is acceptable only when the subject of the photograph turns 18 and agrees to release the photo of him/herself. Otherwise it is exploitation of children.

That's a creative idea but still room for it to be abused, and no lawmaker is into doing pedos a favor.

peta9
10-15-07, 09:50 AM
I can't believe the op asked this stupid question. A "minor" can't give informed consent. And with all the other things stacked against children, it's stupid to exploit them in this way whether someone deems it sexual or not.

I remember a photographer though can't recall his name right now that took nude photos of children and exhibited them as art and it was disgusting and definitely sexual.

kmguru
10-15-07, 09:57 AM
pardon
please put up some pictorials
i need to make an informed judgement

http://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2063946616

Thoreau
10-16-07, 09:56 AM
I can't believe the op asked this stupid question. A "minor" can't give informed consent. And with all the other things stacked against children, it's stupid to exploit them in this way whether someone deems it sexual or not.

I remember a photographer though can't recall his name right now that took nude photos of children and exhibited them as art and it was disgusting and definitely sexual.

And if you have read the enite conversation, you will see that this is not a "stupid question". Its pretty much been concluded in the past 10 pages of debate that the judgement of the content would have to be evaluated case by case before making any calls on whether it is acceptable or not. For instance, its gererally not accepted if the photograph depicts a young girl with her legs wide open and sucking on a banana. However, it would be more than likely be accepted if a photo depicted the girl playing in the family pool with her mother or something.

And as far as the art situation, there are examples that CAN be concidered art. For example...

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2636/1537106yajqb4.jpg

The above photograph depicts nothing sexual. But then again I suppose it would depend on the individual. And if you could possibly perceive it as something sexual, then you've got some issues. But THEN AGAIN, we've discussed this over the past 10 pages. I'm sure you would have known that had you actually read them.

Enmos
10-16-07, 09:58 AM
http://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2063946616

Hey ! That is a nude kid monkey !! :mad:..reported !

Enmos
10-16-07, 09:59 AM
And if you have read the enite conversation, you will see that this is not a "stupid question". Its pretty much been concluded in the past 10 pages of debate that the judgement of the content would have to be evaluated case by case before making any calls on whether it is acceptable or not. For instance, its gererally not accepted if the photograph depicts a young girl with her legs wide open and sucking on a banana. However, it would be more than likely be accepted if a photo depicted the girl playing in the family pool with her mother or something.

And as far as the art situation, there are examples that CAN be concidered art. For example...

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2636/1537106yajqb4.jpg

The above photograph depicts nothing sexual. But then again I suppose it would depend on the individual. And if you could possibly perceive it as something sexual, then you've got some issues. But THEN AGAIN, we've discussed this over the past 10 pages. I'm sure you would have known that had you actually read them.

Maybe you have to ask yourself why the kid had to be nude in the picture.

Thoreau
10-16-07, 10:02 AM
Possibly it was a situational thing. No one knows except for the child, the photographer, and any witnesses. So I cannot answer your questions without full understanding of this exact photograph. However, to many, there is a NON-SEXUAL beauty to the human body. But I'm not going to sit here and recite what has already been brought up. Just go back and read.

Enmos
10-16-07, 10:08 AM
Possibly it was a situational thing. No one knows except for the child, the photographer, and any witnesses. So I cannot answer your questions without full understanding of this exact photograph. However, to many, there is a NON-SEXUAL beauty to the human body. But I'm not going to sit here and recite what has already been brought up. Just go back and read.

I know what has been said. I just don't agree. What's non-sexual about the human body ? If people find this kid more beautiful in the nude than with clothes on then that is questionable in my opinion.

Thoreau
10-16-07, 10:12 AM
And that kinda goes into another section... you might be interested.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72368&page=17

Enmos
10-16-07, 10:24 AM
And that kinda goes into another section... you might be interested.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72368&page=17

Har har :bugeye: Did I say being nude is wrong ?
It's just wrong to put pictures of nude children on the internet as they cannot give consent yet. Would you put a snapshot of your kid in the nude on the internet ?

Reiku
10-16-07, 10:59 AM
:-)

Thoreau
10-16-07, 01:13 PM
Har har :bugeye: Did I say being nude is wrong ?
It's just wrong to put pictures of nude children on the internet as they cannot give consent yet. Would you put a snapshot of your kid in the nude on the internet ?

Depends on the photo and the situation.

Thoreau
10-16-07, 01:18 PM
Fact is that though the child cannot give consent, the parent can. Nude photo's of children are not illegal as long as the photograph does not depict anything sexually explicit.

Enmos
10-16-07, 01:49 PM
Fact is that though the child cannot give consent, the parent can. Nude photo's of children are not illegal as long as the photograph does not depict anything sexually explicit.

Yea, but I suspect we are not talking about law here but rather about morality.

Thoreau
10-16-07, 02:12 PM
Yea, but I suspect we are not talking about law here but rather about morality.

And morals differ from person to person. What one may concider as appropriate, another may not.

Enmos
10-16-07, 02:14 PM
And morals differ from person to person. What one may concider as appropriate, another may not.

There are morals most people agree on though. Anyway, if morals differ from person to person I don't know what the argument is about.. :shrug:

shorty_37
10-16-07, 02:20 PM
Depends on the photo and the situation.

You would put a nude picture of your kid on the internet? :bugeye: I won't post pictures
of my kids clothed on the internet.

Enmos
10-16-07, 02:22 PM
You would put a nude picture of your kid on the internet? :bugeye: I won't post pictures
of my kids clothed on the internet.

Exactly, but then he claims to have his own morals about that...

Thoreau
10-16-07, 02:24 PM
There are morals most people agree on though. Anyway, if morals differ from person to person I don't know what the argument is about.. :shrug:

Concider gay rights. Many feel that homosexuals should be allowed to share the same rights as heterosexual couples. And some feel as though homosexuality is immoral and should not be accepted and equivalized.

Even then, according to the attached poll 43% of the people voted Yes and 57% voted no. Though one does outweigh the other, they are nevertheless fairly split. This is just one of those topics that differ from person to person.

shichimenshyo
10-16-07, 02:24 PM
You would put a nude picture of your kid on the internet? :bugeye: I won't post pictures
of my kids clothed on the internet.

I see a difference between thepicture of your toddler naked and playing in the bath that your gonna pull out and show his girlfriend when hes 19, and the pictures of nude children in an artistic manner that makes the artist money. Despite the fact that they may not be inherently sexual doesnt negate the fact that money is being made off them, and the child doesnt really have a clear understanding of what is taking place.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 02:26 PM
I see a difference between thepicture of your toddler naked and playing in the bath that your gonna pull out and show his girlfriend when hes 19, and the pictures of nude children in an artistic manner that makes the artist money. Despite the fact that they may not be inherently sexual doesnt negate the fact that money is being made off them, and the child doesnt really have a clear understanding of what is taking place.

I agree. Pulling pictures out of a family album for a joke one day is one thing though, posting them on the internet is totally different to me.

Enmos
10-16-07, 02:28 PM
Concider gay rights. Many feel that homosexuals should be allowed to share the same rights as heterosexual couples. And some feel as though homosexuality is immoral and should not be accepted and equivalized.

Even then, according to the attached poll 43% of the people voted Yes and 57% voted no. Though one does outweigh the other, they are nevertheless fairly split. This is just one of those topics that differ from person to person.

Yea, but what kind of persons want to take away a gay person's rights or put nude pictures of their kids on internet. One can have 'bad morals'. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't agree with Hitlers morals, now would you ?

shichimenshyo
10-16-07, 02:28 PM
I agree. Pulling pictures out of a family album for a joke one day is one thing though, posting them on the internet is totally different to me.

Even though it may be "artistic" to some people doesnt change the fact that if its posted on the internet all sorts of creepy ass people can see it.

Enmos
10-16-07, 02:28 PM
Even though it may be "artistic" to some people doesnt change the fact that if its posted on the internet all sorts of creepy ass people can see it.

Precisely.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 02:29 PM
Even then, according to the attached poll 43% of the people voted Yes and 57% voted no. Though one does outweigh the other, they are nevertheless fairly split. This is just one of those topics that differ from person to person.

The poll means nothing. I don't think I ever even voted on it, as I am sure many others didn't either.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 02:30 PM
Even though it may be "artistic" to some people doesnt change the fact that if its posted on the internet all sorts of creepy ass people can see it.

EXACTLY......I rather like to pick and chose who sees pictures of my kids.

Thoreau
10-16-07, 02:30 PM
You would put a nude picture of your kid on the internet? :bugeye: I won't post pictures
of my kids clothed on the internet.

Again, like I said, it depends on the situation. If I must elaborate...

Say I take a picture of my daughter nude in the tub taking a bath. She's 3 years old. And say I want to post it in my online family scrapbook. What is wrong with that? Are you suggesting that I should not share those pictures purely out of fear that some pedophile is going to see them? Sorry, but I do not live my life and raise my family out of fear, I do so out of love.

Enmos
10-16-07, 02:31 PM
Again, like I said, it depends on the situation. If I must elaborate...

Say I take a picture of my daughter nude in the tub taking a bath. She's 3 years old. And say I want to post it in my online family scrapbook. What is wrong with that? Are you suggesting that I should not share those pictures purely out of fear that some pedophile is going to see them? Sorry, but I do not live my life and raise my family out of fear, I do so out of love.

Well that's your call. But do you like the idea of some creep jacking off to that picture.. ? (sorry to be graphical)

Thoreau
10-16-07, 02:34 PM
Well that's your call. But do you like the idea of some creep jacking off to that picture.. ? (sorry to be graphical)

Quite frankly it doesn't matter to me who does what with a simple photograph. However, if anyone dares to try and lay a finger on her, I will not hesitate to rip them apart.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 02:35 PM
Again, like I said, it depends on the situation. If I must elaborate...

Say I take a picture of my daughter nude in the tub taking a bath. She's 3 years old. And say I want to post it in my online family scrapbook. What is wrong with that? Are you suggesting that I should not share those pictures purely out of fear that some pedophile is going to see them? Sorry, but I do not live my life and raise my family out of fear, I do so out of love.

Well this Family scrapbook, that is a secure site right? ( I don't know)
Only your family can access it?

Enmos
10-16-07, 02:36 PM
Well this Family scrapbook, that is a secure sight right? ( I don't know)
Only your family can access it?

Probably a public scrapbook.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 02:38 PM
Quite frankly it doesn't matter to me who does what with a simple photograph.

What? you don't care what somebody might me doing while looking at picture of your kid???????:confused:

Thoreau
10-16-07, 02:39 PM
Well this Family scrapbook, that is a secure site right? ( I don't know)
Only your family can access it?

Yes, it is password protected. But NOT to keep pedophiles out, but rather to keep our "precious moments" sacred (within the realm of family and friends).

shorty_37
10-16-07, 02:40 PM
Yes, it is password protected. But NOT to keep pedophiles out, but rather to keep our "precious moments" sacred (within the realm of family and friends).

Ok well that is different. I thought you were talking about a public site for anybody to browse.

Thoreau
10-16-07, 02:43 PM
What? you don't care what somebody might me doing while looking at picture of your kid???????:confused:

No. Because there is a simple fact that there are 6 BILLION people in this world. What one does with a picture of my child is no concern to me as long as, again, no one touches her. Don't get me wrong, its not like I would go online and post pictures of her at some pedophile site or whatever, but if somehow a pedophile were to get ahold of a picture, I honestly don't care. I don't want to see, or know what they do with the picture, just as long as it does not directly affect me or my family.

Orleander
10-16-07, 02:43 PM
What? you don't care what somebody might me doing while looking at picture of your kid???????:confused:

???why would it matter what anyone did to a photo? :confused: That's like saying don't post a picture of your cat cuz some perv may masturbate to it. Don't post pics of your feet cuz someoen with a fetish may masturbate to it. Don't post...

Thoreau
10-16-07, 02:44 PM
???why would it matter what anyone did to a photo? :confused: That's like saying don't post a picture of your cat cuz some perv may masturbate to it. Don't post pics of your feet cuz someoen with a fetish may masturbate to it. Don't post...

Exactly.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 02:45 PM
???why would it matter what anyone did to a photo? :confused: That's like saying don't post a picture of your cat cuz some perv may masturbate to it. Don't post pics of your feet cuz someoen with a fetish may masturbate to it. Don't post...

I don't really give a shit what somebody does with my cat or dog!
Are you comparing your kids to animals now?

I am saying I wouldn't post my kids nude or clothed on public internet sites, would you?


His family album thing is different.

Orleander
10-16-07, 02:47 PM
I don't really give a shit what somebody does with my cat or dog!
Are you comparing your kids to animals now?

I'm comparing a photo to a photo. None of it is the real thing. Its a PHOTO!

John99
10-16-07, 02:47 PM
???why would it matter what anyone did to a photo? :confused: That's like saying don't post a picture of your cat cuz some perv may masturbate to it. Don't post pics of your feet cuz someoen with a fetish may masturbate to it. Don't post...

The problem is that children cannot give consent. And people are making money off of someone who is no acting on their own free will, later in life the kid may be upset that old men are using the 'artistic' pics took of him as a child for material to get aroused.

If i had nude pics of me taken as a child (which of course is common) i would expect the people (parents) taking them to use discretion as to who they show them to and keep them so i as an adult can see what i looked like....that ALL.

Orleander
10-16-07, 02:49 PM
...I am saying I wouldn't post my kids nude or clothed on public internet sites, would you?...

My kids are all over the internet, newspapers, and school newsletter. Its what happens when they are involved in school, extracurricular activities, and church.

shichimenshyo
10-16-07, 02:51 PM
My kids are all over the internet, newspapers, and school newsletter. Its what happens when they are involved in school, extracurricular activities, and church.

are they all over it nude?

Thoreau
10-16-07, 02:54 PM
I'm comparing a photo to a photo. None of it is the real thing. Its a PHOTO!

Thats what I've been trying to say this whole time.

You and I think WAY too much alike lol.

Orleander
10-16-07, 02:55 PM
...later in life the kid may be upset that old men are using the 'artistic' pics took of him as a child for material to get aroused.

If i had nude pics of me taken as a child (which of course is common) i would expect the people (parents) taking them to use discretion as to who they show them to and keep them so i as an adult can see what i looked like....that ALL.

How would the kid know that? To know that for sure, it would have to turn up in a child porn site wouldn't it?

Orleander
10-16-07, 02:58 PM
are they all over it nude?

No, but shorty said she also had a problem with them being clothed. Her statement is what I was responding to in that post. Its why I quoted her. (see below)

I am saying I wouldn't post my kids nude or clothed on public internet sites, would you?

shichimenshyo
10-16-07, 03:00 PM
No, but shorty said she also had a problem with them being clothed. Her statement is what I was responding to in that post. Its why I quoted her. (see below)

I am saying I wouldn't post my kids nude or clothed on public internet sites, would you?

I would have no real problem having pictures of my kids on my myspace or something of that nature, just not nude ones

Gustav
10-16-07, 03:03 PM
I am saying I wouldn't post my kids nude or clothed on public internet sites, would you?

agreed. it is better to let the children take the initiative

/cackle

John99
10-16-07, 03:06 PM
How would the kid know that? To know that for sure, it would have to turn up in a child porn site wouldn't it?

Speaking for myself, there is no way i would give permission for 'artistic' pictures taken of me as a child...NO WAY. I know what your saying but better to err on the side of caution, i was not put on this earht for someones deviant amusement.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 03:21 PM
My kids are all over the internet, newspapers, and school newsletter. Its what happens when they are involved in school, extracurricular activities, and church.

Ok that's fine, but they aren't nude. I don't see a problem with that. I am still weary as to posting pictures of my kids all over the internet though. Like for instance I don't pictures of them here in the picture thread, and they are damn cute I would love to show them off.

Thoreau
10-16-07, 03:23 PM
Again, its just a photo.

Orleander
10-16-07, 05:11 PM
well, if creeps are jacking off to nude pics of my kids, then he is also doing it to National Geographic and Anne Geddes.
Thora Birch (then 16) showed her boobs in American Beauty. Is that child porn?
If you can't tell the difference then I think you live in a sad narrow minded little world.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 05:21 PM
well, if creeps are jacking off to nude pics of my kids, then he is also doing it to National Geographic and Anne Geddes.


But you wouldn't post nude pictures of your kids on the internet right?

Orleander
10-16-07, 05:24 PM
But you wouldn't post nude pictures of your kids on the internet right?

No, but not because I think its wrong, but because I'd be afraid someone else out there might complain and I'd have a cop show up at my door step. I have all kinds of nakey pics of my kids.
Does anyone remember Nirvana's Nevermind album?

shorty_37
10-16-07, 05:29 PM
No, but not because I think its wrong, but because I'd be afraid someone else out there might complain and I'd have a cop show up at my door step. I have all kinds of nakey pics of my kids.
Does anyone remember Nirvana's Nevermind album?

So you don't do it just because others think it is wrong? or the cops might show up. You would do it, if you thought others wouldn't disapprove?

I have no problem with you having the pictures inside your house, but for what reason would you post naked pictures of them online?

I just don't get as a mother how you don't find it wrong to post naked pictures of your kids online :confused::confused:

Avatar
10-16-07, 05:31 PM
To share and display art. Why do artists have galleries?

shorty_37
10-16-07, 05:32 PM
To share and display art. Why do artists have galleries?

Share pictures of my naked children to the world? For pedophiles and to save on their computers?

Avatar
10-16-07, 05:33 PM
Why not, if it's art or simply beautiful?

Orleander
10-16-07, 05:33 PM
...I have no problem with you having the pictures inside your house, but for what reason would you post naked pictures of them online?

why make a book of it? Why have it painted and hung on your wall? Its art.
I don't know what kind of naked pics you take of your kids, but mine aren't porn. There's not a one anyone in this family (or the people I know) that would have a problem with it.
But it only takes one person to complain....

I repeat..I WOULD HAVE NAKED PICS OF MY KIDS ON THE WEB. ITS ONLY A PICTURE!

Orleander
10-16-07, 05:34 PM
Share pictures of my naked children to the world? For pedophiles and to save on their computers?

what kind of pics do you take of your kids?? :eek:
Mine are about as exciting as Natl Geographic.

shichimenshyo
10-16-07, 05:40 PM
But wy would you even want someone who is a pedophile to have access to them? It is just a picture, but that doesnt change the fact that they would jsut as soon molest your kids as masturbate to them, why even chance giving someone likw that any kind of satisfaction through your children, it disturbs me

shorty_37
10-16-07, 05:41 PM
But wy would you even want someone who is a pedophile to have access to them? It is just a picture, but that doesnt change the fact that they would jsut as soon molest your kids as masturbate to them, why even chance giving someone likw that any kind of satisfaction through your children, it disturbs me

ME TOO !! that a mother is saying she has no problem with it. She just doesn't do it because others wouldn't approve. Sorry but I wouldn't even chance it with my kids!

Orleander
10-16-07, 05:42 PM
Then why even let my kids out of the house?
Its just a picture. Its not names, ages, and directions to my kid's bedroom.
A pedophile would have a better shot of getting a kid by taking them on the way to school, store, or in the yard.

shorty_37
10-16-07, 06:25 PM
I repeat..I WOULD HAVE NAKED PICS OF MY KIDS ON THE WEB. ITS ONLY A PICTURE!

BUT WHY would you post naked pictures of your KIDS on the internet? Who do you want to see these pictures? What are you getting from posting their pictures on there?

I mean if your husband read what you have in capitals would he be in agreement too?

I find YOU very disturbing!

Baron Max
10-16-07, 07:03 PM
A pedophile would have a better shot of getting a kid by taking them on the way to school, store, or in the yard.

Yeah, but with their pictures posted on the Internet, you're practically giving the pedophiles the info about where they are and what they're doing and what they look like ......just in case the pedophile might find them attractive!

Wow, Orleander, I'm .....ahhhh, well, ....I'm flabbergasted at your lack of protection for your own children. Perhaps you should seek some help?

Baron Max

shorty_37
10-16-07, 07:20 PM
Yeah, but with their pictures posted on the Internet, you're practically giving the pedophiles the info about where they are and what they're doing and what they look like ......just in case the pedophile might find them attractive!

Wow, Orleander, I'm .....ahhhh, well, ....I'm flabbergasted at your lack of protection for your own children. Perhaps you should seek some help?

Baron Max

No kidding! I really don't know what to say:bugeye: I mean you can't protect them from everything, or be around all the time. But this coming from a mother is NUTS!

So if some pedophile got arrested and it just so happened he had naked pictures of your kids downloaded on his computer, you wouldn't care? because it's only a picture?

I would be HORRIFIED!

It is one thing to have a few naked pictures of the kiddies around an album at home. POSTING them on the internet for the world to see and copy, download, send to others is a whole different story.

I agree with BARON you need HELP!

Tiassa
10-16-07, 09:24 PM
I think prudishness at this degree suggests people are in dire need of help.

Who wants to argue that the following picture is pornographic?


http://perso.orange.fr/strige/David%20Burnett%20Vietnam.jpg (http://perso.orange.fr/strige/David%20Burnett%20Vietnam.jpg)

How about something more tantalizing? Click here (http://perso.orange.fr/strige/Nick%20Ut%20Vietnam%20non%20recadr%E9e.jpg).

(Also of interest: Kim Phuc Mai, 1997 (http://perso.orange.fr/strige/Kim%20Phuc%20mai%2097%20Toronto.jpg); source website for these images (http://perso.orange.fr/strige/).)

draqon
10-16-07, 09:28 PM
Who wants to argue that the following picture is pornographic?
How about this Tiassa?

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/photos/NagasakiDeadChild.jpg

shorty_37
10-16-07, 09:28 PM
I think prudishness at this degree suggests people are in dire need of help.

Who wants to argue that the following picture is pornographic?



Of course you would post that.....because it pretty far fetched from what we are talking about. :bugeye: Just like Sam and her naked men of India.

Xev
10-16-07, 10:05 PM
Sam is in NJ.

True, but "Naked Men of India" would make a good band name.

S.A.M.
10-16-07, 10:10 PM
I would prefer to call it The Swinging Nagas.

nietzschefan
10-16-07, 10:13 PM
Napalm sticks to kids.