# Drawing the line between art and pornography - the Larry Rivers case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 10, 2010, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195 "2010-07-10T05:32:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/21 "2010-07-10T17:07:25Z")
As much as I love Larry Rivers, I think he would have agreed to destroy the film, too. From what I’ve read of his own writings, LR knew he went too far sometimes. He worked a strong response to the hypocrisy and repression of his era, and when you’re underground you don’t always have a clear map of exactly what you’re reaching for, just what you’re against. This was an era when a teenage girl could expect a beating for leaving a menstrual pad in pain view in the bathroom wastebasket. Women were vastly more constrained against acknowledging their sexuality than coerced to discuss it. Not that I’m saying LR was doing his daughters a favor, but I’ve read many biographies of artists, as well as tell-all autobiographies by their childred, and the children of an avant garde artists do not have happy lives. This story reminds me of a while back when the general learned of the [Ivy League Nude Photos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League_nude_posture_photos) taken of thousands of naked students, some who are now quite famous people. When they were destroyed, a part of me wondered if this was well-intentioned historical vandalism, but the main part of me thinks is good enough that we know it happened, but let the actual evidence be destroyed. I’m sure the film of Hitler’s would-be assasins being hanged with piano wire is still on file, but I’ll take your word for it that it was horrific. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/22 "2010-07-10T17:31:37Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > …but the main part of me thinks is good enough that we know it happened, but let the actual evidence be destroyed. I’m sure the film of Hitler’s would-be assasins being hanged with piano wire is still on file, but I’ll take your word for it that it was horrific. By that logic we should also destroy (or at least file away & not publicaly exhibit) footage of nude & emaciated concentration camp survivors (& of those that didn’t surive)? Many of whom were also children. That footage is also horrific, but it certainly shouldn’t be destroyed or hidden away. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/23 "2010-07-10T17:37:22Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > By that logic we should also destroy (or at least file away & not publicaly exhibit) footage of nude & emaciated concentration camp survivors (& of those that didn’t surive)? Many of whom were also children. That footage is also horrific, but it certainly shouldn’t be destroyed or hidden away. Interesting point. A key difference, i’ll wager, is that, in the case of the concentration camp images, the victims themselves wouldn’t want the footage destroyed. Holocaust survivors tend, for the most part, to promote the idea of remembering, rather than forgetting. At least on a broad, historical level; i’m sure some of them would love to forget the suffering they endured. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/24 "2010-07-10T17:45:22Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > ETA: I’m also aware that yes, we can make kids do stuff against their will. But we as a society acknowledge that some things we can’t make them do. Stuff of a sexual nature is stuff they can’t consent to. By that rationale, if we can make them dress up as a hot dog or clean their rooms we should also be able to fondle or grope them for fun. But we obviously do draw the line at sex. And I think most people would draw the line at naked or sexually charged film/photographs. Nudity does not equate to sex. Talking about your physical development does not equate to talking about sex. Not only that, but talking about sex is, in fact, something that kids are asked to do in class, in front of all of their classmates, in middle school these days. I mean, I don’t know what’s in the archives. For all I know, he was raping the girls with a toothbrush on film. That the person managing the archive doesn’t think the material should be destroyed tells me, however, that while it may depict stuff that is mildly embarrassing, nothing there is remotely criminal. Your assumption that it sexual material seems like a fairly large assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/25 "2010-07-10T17:48:34Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > By that logic we should also destroy (or at least file away & not publicaly exhibit) footage of nude & emaciated concentration camp survivors (& of those that didn’t surive)? Many of whom were also children. That footage is also horrific, but it certainly shouldn’t be destroyed or hidden away. The abuse here was much more personal. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/26 "2010-07-10T18:00:01Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Here’s the problem with your attempts to defend this guy: using your position of control to compel your children to let you video them, naked, while you interview them about their breasts is _not_ reasonable, and is _not_ for their own good. It’s just a creepy, unethical abuse of power. Quoting **Slithy Tove** : "He worked a strong response to the hypocrisy and repression of his era, and when you’re underground you don’t always have a clear map of exactly what you’re reaching for, just what you’re against. This was an era when a teenage girl could expect a beating for leaving a menstrual pad in pain view in the bathroom wastebasket. Women were vastly more constrained against acknowledging their sexuality than coerced to discuss it." This was almost certainly Rivers’ intent, regardless of whether it was successful or wise. Trying to empower your daughter to feel at ease with her body is creepy? It may well have failed – probably because he was overly pushy – but the man was probably overly pushy about everything. He was a crazy artist type. If he hadn’t messed the girls up by having them be naked, he’d have pushed them over the edge in some other way. Consider Peter Sellers; everyone who knew him hated him and he basically abused his whole family – maybe not physically, but emotionally and mentally. Does his son Michael have a de facto ability to destroy any and all footage or other recordings of his dad, or himself with his dad that makes him recall the abuse, regardless of whether anyone else thinks there’s historical or artistic merit to the material? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/27 "2010-07-10T18:28:54Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Trying to empower your daughter to feel at ease with her body is creepy? If you think Rivers’ actions are an appropriate method? **Yes!** > [@](#): > > Consider Peter Sellers; everyone who knew him hated him and he basically abused his whole family – maybe not physically, but emotionally and mentally. Does his son Michael have a de facto ability to destroy any and all footage or other recordings of his dad, or himself with his dad that makes him recall the abuse, regardless of whether anyone else thinks there’s historical or artistic merit to the material? Yet again, you’re trying to move the goalposts. His daughter isn’t trying to render him an un-person, the videos she wants destroyed are the _product_ of her abuse, in which she was filmed naked without her legitimate consent. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/28 "2010-07-10T18:40:38Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But, even if we assume that filming naked teenagers is not _inherently_ immoral or abusive, surely there are particular instances where it _is_, in fact, immoral and abusive. And, for me, one of the things that would put it over the line is if the minor subjects not only didn’t participate willingly, but were clearly reluctant and upset. and there seems little doubt that this was the case for Rivers’ daughters. > > Even if we put aside the legal issue of age of consent, and argue that kids as young as 11 or 12 can reasonably consent to being filmed naked, the fact is that Rivers’ daughters, based on the accounts we have, would _not_ have willingly consented to being filmed in this way, and only did it because they were pressured to do it by their father. That makes this particular instance immoral and abusive, in my opinion. People pressure their kids to do a lot of stuff. Some of that stuff is stuff that the kids don’t want to do, that scares them or upsets them, but it is not necessarily considered abusive because of that. This case is special, because it involves nudity, and that gets extra scrutiny in our culture. So the question is: what is the point of this nudity? Are the films actually valid as a documentary of the children’s growth? Do they have artistic value? Or is it just skeevy incestuous perving over adolescent boobies? I don’t know; I haven’t seen them. From the description given in the article, it’s hard to tell. But I don’t like destroying things; it’s irreversible. You have to be pretty sure that what you’re destroying is valueless. The films aren’t publicly available. No-one, as of now, can see them, aside from the librarians and conservationists charged with preserving them. So keep them under wraps until everyone who cares is dead and then we can take another look, without the emotional coloring. > [@mhendo](#): > > But you concede that the “major issue is the distress of the daughters,” and it’s clear from the story that the existence of these films continues to cause distress, even when no-one is viewing them. Does that not count for something? Not enough to persuade me to destroy them. This material was acquired as part of an academic collection; the library’s mandate is to preserve and conserve the materials as a scholarly resource. Someone’s emotional distress over the content is irrelevant to that mission; letting personal considerations dictate what is kept and what is lost is antithetical to the library’s academic purpose. > [@mhendo](#): > > For me, the key reasons to hand over the film are: that the daughters were clearly reluctant participants and have been upset by its creation and its existence; that they are still around and able to make such a determination; that it was made during a time when we had very explicit laws about child pornography and sexual exploitation of minors; and that it was made at a time when society’s expectations are that a father will not ogle and take pictures of his naked pubescent daughters. Points one and two are valid, but not enough, to me, to demand returning the material. Point three I do not find convincing, since I am not persuaded that the films are in fact pornography; but even if they were intended to titillate, the sole “user” of them for that purpose is now dead, and little further harm is accruing as long as the films are not viewed or distributed. One hundred years from now, they may have the same status as Lewis Carroll’s nudes of little girls; a slightly disturbing reminder that highly talented and respected people can have highly questionable interests. Point four I partially reject. I do not see anything inherently wrong with seeing your children naked (or letting them see you naked), or in filming naked adolescents as such; society’s expectations can go hang. I do, however, expect that men will not lust after their own daughters (or girls their daughter’s age, in general), and will not make sex objects out of them. Insofar as that seems to be the case, these films are problematic, but the problematic acts already happened and cannot be revoked. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/29 "2010-07-10T19:03:27Z")
First, there is no “line between art and pornography.” Pornography comprises a subset of art. Second, the honorable course is clearly for the university to turn over the material in question to its subjects, not because it is pornographic, but because it is them. As children at the time, they could not consent to any film of themselves (naked or otherwise) being made for strangers in the future. (I am using “consent” here in a moral and practical sense, analogous but not synonymous to its legal usage.) > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Consider Peter Sellers; everyone who knew him hated him and he basically abused his whole family – maybe not physically, but emotionally and mentally. Does his son Michael have a de facto ability to destroy any and all footage or other recordings of his dad, or himself with his dad that makes him recall the abuse, regardless of whether anyone else thinks there’s historical or artistic merit to the material? I do not think “de facto” means what you think it means. That aside, I’d say Michael Sellers has the moral right to obtain and hold or dispose of any recordings of _himself as a minor_ for which he has never given formal permission to others to use. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/30 "2010-07-10T22:55:56Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > First, there is no “line between art and pornography.” Pornography comprises a subset of art. > > Second, the honorable course is clearly for the university to turn over the material in question to its subjects, not because it is pornographic, but because it is them. As children at the time, they could not consent to any film of themselves (naked or otherwise) being made for strangers in the future. … Huh? The second point first: By this logic any celebrity’s adult child has an ethical right (that should be respected) to have all recorded images that includes them struck out of the historical record where ever those images reside. Pictures of JFK that included his family? Any of those children can demand they all be destroyed. When the Obama girls turn 18, they can request that all recordings of election eve where they came out with Dad and Mom be destroyed. My adult child can request that any images I have of him as a child, in any form, be destroyed, because he had no ability to consent at that time either. Absurd. The second point: there is a difference between art and pornography, even if that line is as fuzzy as a Vaseline coated lens, and even if the line varies from society to society and across time. The op stated the case carefully: in our society at this time a video taken of naked girls in early pubescence talking about their breasts, planned to be shown to others for their “artistic enjoyment”, would likely be considered as child porn if it was done by a regular guy in his basement. If the child who had been so videotaped requested the only known copy of that video to be destroyed, few would dispute her. Consistency demands no less respect to the request of an adult child of a celebrity, be that celebrity an artist or a movie director. That logic is hard to argue against. The biggest issue is whether _intent_ matters. And while my first blush is to say that it does not, I can immediately think of examples that counter it - A child is photographed naked, with parent’s consent, to document a medical condition for an academic article or textbook. Should that child as an adult be allowed to have those textbooks and/or journals all destroyed? I think not. So intent must matter after all. And it is because intent matters that this becomes more gray. But these images were, it seems, at least somewhat sexual in their nature, even if the intent was to make that sexuality less uncomfortable and to explore our discomfort with it. Protecting the person who perceived it as abuse seems reasonable. Does that protection require destruction of the images? That seems to be the unresolved item to me anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/31 "2010-07-10T23:59:03Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > By this logic any celebrity’s adult child has an ethical right (that should be respected) to have all recorded images that includes them struck out of the historical record where ever those images reside. Pictures of JFK that included his family? Any of those children can demand they all be destroyed. When the Obama girls turn 18, they can request that all recordings of election eve where they came out with Dad and Mom be destroyed. My adult child can request that any images I have of him as a child, in any form, be destroyed, because he had no ability to consent at that time either. Absurd. Why exactly is that absurd? Reasonable people who live in the real world understand that such a request will typically only arise in cases like this, where there’s an obvious reason (even if you don’t agree with it) why the adult child might prefer not to have _those_ images of themselves available to the public (or to any strangers, which is almost the same thing)… what’s the problem with respecting people’s wishes–people who are not _themselves_ figures of historic relevance–about which portrayals of them are public? If Caroline Kennedy, for example, were to have asked that certain family candids of the early 1960s not be republished–so what? Our historical understanding of the Kennedy administration is not diminished. We have no _right_ to her childhood otherwise. But there’s nothing problematic with those images, so the request has never come. > [@DSeid](#): > > The second point: there is a difference between art and pornography, even if that line is as fuzzy as a Vaseline coated lens, and even if the line varies from society to society and across time. > > The op stated the case carefully: in our society at this time a video taken of naked girls in early pubescence talking about their breasts, planned to be shown to others for their “artistic enjoyment”, would likely be considered as child porn if it was done by a regular guy in his basement. If the child who had been so videotaped requested the only known copy of that video to be destroyed, few would dispute her. Consistency demands no less respect to the request of an adult child of a celebrity, be that celebrity an artist or a movie director. Okay, so that’s “pornography” you’re describing, right? Even though it is identified within the scenario as “artistic”? Just trying to follow along here. I think I’m with you. I’m not seeing where the distinction is that _separates_ pornography from art, here. Being made by a “regular guy in his basement”? That’s the difference? The room in which it is made? The relative fame of the maker? What’s the problem with just saying that pornography is a subset of art? You can still have your fuzzy boundary between porn and not-porn. What part of your ideology requires that there be “pornography” which is not also “art”? > [@DSeid](#): > > The biggest issue is whether _intent_ matters. And while my first blush is to say that it does not, I can immediately think of examples that counter it - A child is photographed naked, with parent’s consent, to document a medical condition for an academic article or textbook. Should that child as an adult be allowed to have those textbooks and/or journals all destroyed? I think not. So intent must matter after all. It would be a shame if medical knowledge was lost, sure. But does society have the _right_ to seize medical knowledge against the will of the subjects? I think not. (See Mengele, right?) As a general rule, my belief is that imagined or postulated “intent” is given too much weight, relative to real actions and real consequences. > [@DSeid](#): > > But these images were, it seems, at least somewhat sexual in their nature, even if the intent was to make that sexuality less uncomfortable and to explore our discomfort with it. Protecting the person who perceived it as abuse seems reasonable. Does that protection require destruction of the images? That seems to be the unresolved item to me anyway. So we agree that the daughter in this case has some moral right to control the use of the recordings. ---
**Author:** ![dukette71](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8edcca/32.png) [@dukette71](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dukette71)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/32 "2010-07-11T01:14:41Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Obviously at some point, the daughter learned to be ashamed of her body – possibly even when she was a kid – but the point remains that that’s her problem, not her dad’s. I think the daughter learned that her body parts and sexuality are not for public consumption, or her fathers. How does this translate to “ashamed of her body”? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/33 "2010-07-11T01:36:31Z")
Hey **Sage Rat** , why don’t you post some pics of your dick online? Or are you ashamed of your body? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/34 "2010-07-11T01:57:07Z")
There **is** no “line.” Pornography is a subset of art. So is professional wresting and a great many other forms of artistic expression that lack any highbrow cachet or refinement. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/35 "2010-07-11T03:24:19Z")
I HAVE to believe, in order to preserve some small part of my faith in humanity, that **Sage Rat** is just trolling here. It’s literally unconscionable to me that someone could think that sexualized filming of minors–and Rivers’ filming WASN’T just mere child _nudity_; these films were _purposefully sexually contextualized_ by their maker–without their consent is something that could in any way be justified, defended, or in any way legitimately artistic. And then **Sage Rat** states flat out that the adult daughter’s objection to the films is because of body insecurities. Wonder if he’d have the stones to say that to her, to her face. I’m not at all surprised that **Sage Rat** is not a parent. No parent I have ever known would _possibly_ ever think the way he does about what is clearly an exploitation issue (I have a daughter, myself). When and if he becomes a parent, all this decidedly undergrad, faux-enlightened anti-censorship rhetoric will ring sophomoric, pretentious, and ivory tower to him, as it appears to do to most of us. I’m out, on this one. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/36 "2010-07-11T03:33:22Z")
**spark** , it is absurd to posit that any individual has the right to edit images of themselves as a child out from existence, even if that didn’t take other parts of the historical record with it, which of course theses example do. You are now limiting your position to “candids” although the logical basis for such limitation is unclear - the lack of consent as an adult was the same for family candids and for formal events - but no matter: who are you, or I, to say that our understanding of an administration is not diminished by having family moments edited out? Who is to say that the “obvious” reason may not be to protect the iconic image of a parent who was a public figure? Defining “art” vs. “porn” could take up its own thread or so. Certainly there can be an overlap and there can be works that some would define as one that others, or other societies, or other times, would define as the other. And some can be both. I cannot accept that art is anything we put a frame (not per se a physical one mind you) around. More than that would get well into hijack territory. For the purposes of this thread I would posit that porn is that which a society broadly agrees it is. Tautologic as that definition may be, a society establishes a standard of what is and is not on each side of the line, and in this thread the issue is whether or not that line shifts by virtue of who produced the material and/or with what intent. And who gets to decide what side of the line a particular work is and who gets decide what happens to it. Mengele? Really? I guess getting to over 30 posts before Godwinizing aint too bad. No the analogy does not hold. Torturing someone, experimenting on people against their will, is not the same as accepting parental consent for the use of pictures for educational and medicoscientific purposes. And yes, doctors and scientists have a right to observe and to learn from patients even without a patients explicit consent that learning may occur; a patient may not forbid a doctor from using knowledge learned from the experience of dealing with his/her case to help others. They have a right to protect their identity as individuals, but not to withhold the observations or the lessons learned. And yes we agree that she has some moral right. We differ in that I believe that her moral right is contingent upon the images meeting a standard that would at least be arguably considered child pornography by the society in which she and we exist and the belief that in a case that is at best unclear the protection of the perceived victim should trump most other concerns. And even that statement is qualified by a lack of certainty as to what constitutes adequately protecting a perceived victim - is destruction of the images, if that is what requested, required? Or does locking the works away until some period of time after the perceived victim’s death, and then limiting access to those with a true academic interest, be sufficient, even if it is less than that is requested? On that point I am not sure, but am leaning towards locking them away until some time after death of the work’s subject as sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/37 "2010-07-11T03:36:58Z")
> [@Cyningablod](#): > > I HAVE to believe, in order to preserve some small part of my faith in humanity, that **Sage Rat** is just trolling here. No, that’s just Sage Rat, in my experience. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/38 "2010-07-11T04:07:10Z")
Wait second. Child nudity is considered child pornography and against the law now? Since when? Cause if so good. My mom has this terribly embarrassing picture of me, stark naked at the age of around 3 on her wall. Ive begged her to take it down but she has refused to do so. However it looks like I can now call the cops on her right? Come to think of it I hate my body sometimes, specially after thanksgiving. I bet you that picture has traumatized me in some way. And what about the perky pedos who might visit my mom. What if they get a hard on from seeing my picture? The horror! Why won’t my mom think of the children!? ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/39 "2010-07-11T04:14:27Z")
Perky = pervy. Though perky might also describe those bastards. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195/40 "2010-07-11T05:20:35Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > Wait second. Child nudity is considered child pornography and against the law now? Since when? Cause if so good. > > My mom has this terribly embarrassing picture of me, stark naked at the age of around 3 on her wall. Ive begged her to take it down but she has refused to do so. However it looks like I can now call the cops on her right? > > Come to think of it I hate my body sometimes, specially after thanksgiving. I bet you that picture has traumatized me in some way. And what about the perky pedos who might visit my mom. What if they get a hard on from seeing my picture? The horror! Why won’t my mom think of the children!? But I think there’s a huge difference between a picture where the kid happens to be naked and where the kid being naked is the whole point. And I do think that if your mom had taken video of you naked and asking you how you felt about the size of your genitals, that would be a whole other game. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-art-and-pornography-the-larry-rivers-case/546195.md?page=3)