What constitutes "art" or "porn"?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iCantwait, Jul 7, 2008.

  1. iCantwait macrumors 65816

    iCantwait

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #1
    im sick of old women saying almost every pic of a person under 18 is child porn, sure there are VERY sick people out there who enjoy that stuff, but in todays world a father cant even take a photo of his son in a public place with out him being thought a pedophile.

    In Aus there is some art/'child porn' stuff on the news, and it is really pissing me off, just thoes old women against child abuse and saying the subject of art photos has been 'brainwashed' to consenting, even our PM

    /rant
     
  2. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #2
    Um. Younger than the age of majority=child. Nakedness=pornography. Put the two together and what do you get?

    This is really one of those things where it's best to err on the side of safety and non-exploitation.

    (And I'm not an old woman speaking, though I'm sure many of them also have strong opinions on the matter.)
     
  3. iCantwait thread starter macrumors 65816

    iCantwait

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #3
    so is it legal porn if the subject is 18 in the same pose? or just art?
     
  4. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #4


    Really? I thought it all depended on laws. A person under 18 years old in the UK is classed as a child.

    Hardly.
    Pornography is sexual explicit. Nakedness isn't
     
  5. iCantwait thread starter macrumors 65816

    iCantwait

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #5
    thats where im coming coming from, im not for child porn/exploitation but if is not taken in an erotic style and both child and parents consent then people should not be saying its porn.
     
  6. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #6
    In my country at least, it's legal at age 18--art, not art, whatever. It doesn't need to be "art" (and I'm worried when the government tries to define what art is) for it to be legal.

    Well, that's why I used the phrase "age of majority." That is legally defined in every country.

    OK, fair enough, retracted. But under the age of majority, the distinction is immaterial; the presumption is that it is exploitative because children do not have the legal authority to assent to those actions. While, as I said, I don't like the government defining art, there do need to be some boundaries, particularly with respect to the protection of kids from exploitation.
     
  7. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #7
    So the photos of me playing naked on a beach when I was 5 years old is child pornography?

    What a load of crap!
     
  8. iCantwait thread starter macrumors 65816

    iCantwait

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #8
    with the internet it is easy for pictures to go to millions world wide, so some amount of caution should be taken in positioning of the subject and distribution of the photos.

    Now would be a good time to point out the worst album cover of all time "Virgin Killer" by the scorpions - They Rock btw, but i got the censored US cover


    just about in todays world
     
  9. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
  10. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #11
    Yep.

    Apparently it only takes ones person to 'get off' on said picture to classify it as "porn".

    The rest of us, who would laugh and go "awwww" at such a picture, are left wanting.

    Pretty sad, eh.
     
  11. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Important here to distinguish between 'naked' and 'nude'.
     
  12. xlii macrumors 68000

    xlii

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Location:
    Millis, Massachusetts
    #13
    Simple... the difference between art and porn is only in the eye of the beholder. Thus it cannot be defined because we all have our own definition and my will not be the same as yours.
     
  13. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #14
    I believe the legal term is PRURIENT INTERESTS. Does that apply here?
     
  14. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #15
    It is a sorry state of affairs, that the US (at least) is so full of predators, looking to exploit someone. And, I am not just speaking about sexual exploitation. You can begin with the likes of Enron, who stole Billions from energy users and investors, to the lowlife who steal people's identity. For me, the worse are those who target pensioners, and often bilk them out of their retirement savings. These bastards get, at most 3 to 5, and their attorneys get paid first, from any money recovered, not the victims. Where is the justice in that?

    Nakedness, should not automatically constitute pornography (as others have said). But in our puritanical society, even sexy swimwear, or lingerie, is considered borderline porn. Yet, I think the mainstream can tell whether a naked body is being posed for sexual arousal or simply a photographer's subject.

    As far as the pre-eighteen year old protections, I think they need to be in-place, otherwise there certainly be exploitation. Again, that is the type of society we live in. I think bartelby makes a good point; childhood family pictures would certainly not automatically be pornographic, or sexual. My parents also have pictures of me at the beach, butt naked, running around and having the time of my life. Most just show my skinny little butt. My mom collected pictures and our childhood 'art' and made scrapbooks for each of us kids. So, I now have these pictures, and I would not surrender them to anyone.
     
  15. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #16
    Remember the detectives that went into Michael Jacksons house said that some of those art books tended to be found quite often in the homes of child predators.

    Not really a coffee table books these days anymore.
     
  16. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #17
    Obviously, everything needs to be taken in context, and there's an exception for every situation. The big conflicts over so-called "political correctness" tend to manifest in the grey areas where common sense ought to prevail. Your example is one of those. But this thread started out with blanket statements and generalizations, so I'll respond in kind. If I had to make a blanket statement about this matter (and laws, unfortunately, require some amount of generalization, just as a practical matter), then I'd make it erring on the side of caution. Fortunately, we have a legal system to sort out the grey, and when it works right, it can prevent the over-enforcement of laws.
     
  17. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #18
    For porn, see Justice Stewart. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

    From a college buddy of mine who happens to be an artist:

    "You can define art in one of two ways. Whatever is currently popular in art circles, or whatever someone else says is art."
     
  18. OscarTheGrouch macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Location:
    G' Vegas South Carolina
    #19
    excuse me while i go delete all the naked pics of my new baby getting a bath, or at the pool with no top on her.
     
  19. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #20
    Yes, do that.

    You would not want Children's Aid to take her from you, somewhere down the road.
     
  20. mpw Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #21
    Rubbish.

    I really don't understand the problem so many people have with nudity. What could be more natural, yet nudity is seem as offensive to some.

    The fact that you can't show a cartoon of a penis on this site(for example), but if you censor the same picture by covering the cartoon penis with a machine-gun that's okay is what I find offensive.
    What is the difference?
     
  21. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #22
    I would guess perception, but Much Ado would have to address that one.

    It would seem that the prudes dislike nudity because they suspect that someone, somewhere, is getting off (prurient interest), and they are not.

    Hardy a reasonable person's position to ban others from viewing the joy that is nature.
     
  22. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #23

    None of the people who have walked into my living room and seen that picture have thought it was child pornography, so you are O.K.
    :eek:



    OK, but really, this thread a little disturbing to me. Not the conversation in it, per se, but more of the intent of actually starting the topic. It kind of sounds to me like starting a thread:

    "It's not really sexual assault unless the person got...excuse me...gets hurt....right?"
     
  23. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #24
    See my subsequent responses.
     
  24. OscarTheGrouch macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Location:
    G' Vegas South Carolina
    #25
    in a serious response i think the problem is twofold

    1. we are just a bunch of uptight people. every other country that is similiar to us in education and economics (france, germany, canada etc) has no problem with some nudity. i remember being in paris and seeing a billboard with a bare chested woman. BIG WHOOP. and if flows down from there with naked children etc. it all depends on the light in which they are being portrayed.. unfortunately society has caused my next point to come into play

    2. perverts. we have all kinds of sicko's out there and they do who knows what to people etc. i think the thought that one of these legit "art" photos being used in a sexual nature is too much for some. then what if one of those "sickos" acted on their feelings etc with some young girl... which is another problem. i personally get no arousal out of it.. but i think thats why there is such a battle and problem with it all.
     

Share This Page