Anyone for Art versus Pornography ?

[Lakai]

@chicken wire?

If the objections are to the work, they’re ill informed and baseless. If they’re to the man, well, we’ll see.

I absolutely agree, except to say that we should stop the man before he takes the photos.

[MrDibble]

@Lakai

No, but I would ban websites from publishing those pictures.

But that doesn’t stop the production of the material. Which is the step you’d take against Henson, who is clearly not producing porn. So you’d take a greater step against the guy who hasn’t done something wrong, rather than the logical step to stop the obvious wrong?

@Lakai

The point is how do you allow nice guys like Henson to take nude photos and no else? If you can write a law to accomplish that, then I wouldn’t be against it.

As you are suggesting, we’d not have much success writing a law that can distinguish nice guys from not-nice guys. But the issue isn’t whether there ought to be a law, it’s whether Henson broke an existing one. Stopping his non-porn exhibition does nothing to stop kiddie porn. Especially since most kiddie porn seems to be produced in a abusive context anyway, rather than by professional artists. It’s attacking the wrong angle entirely.

@Lakai

I don’t like the fact that people are responding to the questionable art, and not on the dangers of letting children get naked in front of photographers.

The danger is in letting children get naked in front of photographers where you don’t know what’s going to be photographed. If you do, or are present the whole time, then no danger, IMO. I see nothing wrong with nudity as such, anyway.

@Lakai

Nude photos aren’t simple. If they aren’t tasteful, and are distributed among porn sites, they can really damage a persons reputation. The decision shouldn’t be up to a minor or their parents.

I agree it shouldn’t be up to them alone - it should be up to Society, but only when Society can craft something a bit less subjective than “I know it when I see it”.
But I’m against a standard that starts from the assumption that nudity is wrong. I’m all for a complete relaxation of public nudity laws, too, just so you know where I’m coming from. If I want to get naked, I don’t see where that’s anyone’s business but mine, in that fist/nose definition of freedom to act.

@Lakai

We can live without this kind of free expression as long as it protects children from being exploited.

I’m rather of the opinion that free expression and freedom from exploitation can live side by side, as long as you’ve adequately defined “exploitation” so you can prevent it, and only it.

@Lakai

I probably could have written something more dry and logical, but that isn’t as much fun.

But you can see how it obscures the meat of your orgument, no?

[Lakai]

@MrDibble

But that doesn’t stop the production of the material. Which is the step you’d take against Henson, who is clearly not producing porn. So you’d take a greater step against the guy who hasn’t done something wrong, rather than the logical step to stop the obvious wrong?

Is banning cellphones the logical step? I see it as the greater step. If the material doesn’t have an outlet it would be greatly reduced. If a kid took the pictures and gave them out herself then the kid should be punished. Banning cell phones is overkill.

Plus, I don’t really want to punish Henson. I wish the outcry would be used to to make better laws about this situation.

As you are suggesting, we’d not have much success writing a law that can distinguish nice guys from not-nice guys. But the issue isn’t whether there ought to be a law, it’s whether Henson broke an existing one. Stopping his non-porn exhibition does nothing to stop kiddie porn. Especially since most kiddie porn seems to be produced in a abusive context anyway, rather than by professional artists. It’s attacking the wrong angle entirely.

I think this issue should be about whether there ought to be a law or not. If it is simply about not liking the artwork, then just don’t go to the art show. I agree it would do nothing to stop kiddie porn if we have a law that allows nude photos to be taken, but not displayed in an art gallery.

The danger is in letting children get naked in front of photographers where you don’t know what’s going to be photographed. If you do, or are present the whole time, then no danger, IMO. I see nothing wrong with nudity as such, anyway.

I agree, but I don’t trust anyone to make this distinction when children are involved. The risk is just too great.

I agree it shouldn’t be up to them alone - it should be up to Society, but only when Society can craft something a bit less subjective than “I know it when I see it”. But I’m against a standard that starts from the assumption that nudity is wrong. I’m all for a complete relaxation of public nudity laws, too, just so you know where I’m coming from. If I want to get naked, I don’t see where that’s anyone’s business but mine, in that fist/nose definition of freedom to act.

This isn’t about general nudity. It is about preventing children from being exploited. I think preventing photographers from photographing them nude is an effective way of doing that.

I’m rather of the opinion that free expression and freedom from exploitation can live side by side, as long as you’ve adequately defined “exploitation” so you can prevent it, and only it.

Maybe that would work. I don’t think anyone is going to come up with a clear definition of exploitation anytime soon though. Until then, a blanket policy of not allowing nude photos of anyone underage is the best way.

But you can see how it obscures the meat of your orgument, no?

I can see now that it might imply that I thought that Henson would sexually abuse the kids in some way. My mistake, I couldn’t help it. The present situation was too close to the classic stereotype and I got carried away.

[MrDibble]

@Lakai

Is banning cellphones the logical step? I see it as the greater step. If the material doesn’t have an outlet it would be greatly reduced. If a kid took the pictures and gave them out herself then the kid should be punished. Banning cell phones is overkill.

So, IMO, is banning this particular exhibition by Henson.

@Lakai

I
I agree, but I don’t trust anyone to make this distinction when children are involved. The risk is just too great.

Well, I trust myself to make the decision for my own daughter. Why should your lack of trust, uninvolved as you admit it is, trump that?

[Lakai]

Well, I trust myself to make the decision for my own daughter. Why should your lack of trust, uninvolved as you admit it is, trump that?

Can’t we both agree that not all parents are like you? That some won’t make the right decision here. Is this worth the risk for you?

[Miller]

@Lakai

Can’t we both agree that not all parents are like you? That some won’t make the right decision here. Is this worth the risk for you?

What other decisions should we prevent parents from making because some of them are too dumb or too immoral to make the right decision?

[Lakai]

@Miller

What other decisions should we prevent parents from making because some of them are too dumb or too immoral to make the right decision?

Decisions where the consequence of making the wrong decision outweigh the benefits of making the right one.

What is more important? To have artistic photos of nude children and for some children to be exploited, or a lot less exploitation and no art of nude kids?

I can live without the art. What is so important about this kind of art that it must be allowed at the expense of kids who can get exploited?

[fessie]

You might not have noticed this, but there are a LOT of nekkid kids in Renaissance art. They’re part of various myths and legends.

But anyway…

The problem isn’t that artists (or people posing as artists) are running around looking for children to exploit.

The problem is that children ARE exploited pretty much in every culture.

Let’s see, posing naked for a lascivious photographer v. being a 6-yr-old sex slave…hmmm…I think the sex slave issue rather dwarfs any discussion of the merits and drawbacks of naked children as art.

[Burton]

It’s not hard to tell the difference between art and ponography.

[MrDibble]

@Lakai

Can’t we both agree that not all parents are like you? That some won’t make the right decision here. Is this worth the risk for you?

Yes, it is. You’re willing to curtail freedom of expression for a risk I believe is way overblown. It’s like the 80s satanic panic all over again, this latest paedo-predator scare.

Cite me some facts - how* many* abusers get to their victims by posing as professional photographers (not abusers who happen to take photos of their victims, of which I’ve seen plenty)? Let’s see some numbers before we go talking about “risk”.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Lakai

What is more important? To have artistic photos of nude children and for some children to be exploited, or a lot less exploitation and no art of nude kids?

I feel that this is a false dilemma. At the very least, I’d like to see evidence that reduction of artistic child nudes reduces child pornography.

[Lakai]

So it appears that most of the child porn comes from children being solicited over the internet and not from professional artists.

The kids are probably safer with professional photographers because they have to obtain parental consent, whereas with the sexual predators the parents don’t know anything about what the kids are doing.

Here is just one website’s factsheet:

How Do Online Exploiters Find Children?
Individuals looking for potential child victims online have no difficulty finding them. It is quite common for these individuals to frequent “kids only” chatrooms and communicate with children who unwittingly divulge personal information about themselves. A more recent phenomenon is the solicitation of sex over the Internet.

After this initial meeting, these individuals will often continue to communicate with the child electronically or through other means. Some of these individuals may then attempt to lower the child’s inhibitions by gradually introducing sexual content into their online conversations and even send pornographic images to the child. When children are shown images of peers engaged in sexual activities, they are led to believe this behavior is acceptable. This lowers their inhibitions and makes it easier for the molester to take advantage of the child sexually.

Looking back, I’m thinking it wouldn’t make much sense for a professional photographer to trick parents as it would be easier for the photographer to be later found if he had contact with the parents.

I admit, I was wrong on this one.

[fessie]

@Lakai

I admit, I was wrong on this one.

(((hug))) Hey, good for you for you for really examining the issue and being willing to challenge your beliefs. I’ve discovered I was wrong, too, on several occasions.

[MrDibble]

@Lakai

So it appears that most of the child porn comes from children being solicited over the internet and not from professional artists.
The kids are probably safer with professional photographers because they have to obtain parental consent, whereas with the sexual predators the parents don’t know anything about what the kids are doing. […]
Looking back, I’m thinking it wouldn’t make much sense for a professional photographer to trick parents as it would be easier for the photographer to be later found if he had contact with the parents.
I admit, I was wrong on this one.

It’s very good of you to evaluate the facts and change your opinion based on your research. I think that shows commendable effort, and you’re a great example to all the rest of us. Thanks for coming back and sharing as well.