Child porn police to investigate Elton John

[pacific breeze]

^^Well, yes. "Right" and "wrong" are value judgments in this context and as such, are not subject to legal constraints unless a court of law, based on whatever parameters are set -- in Canada it tends to be "community standards" -- finds them to contravene those standards. I looked at that photo and I did NOT see a child's vagina. Projection is a funny thing, IMO. I saw two children playing joyfully and exploring their bodies in a totally innocent way as children often do.

The parents of those children AGREED by signing a legal document to have the photo taken, and all this handwringing about how awful it is for those girls is speculation/hysteria at best and has nothing to do with the actual photograph or the intent of the photographer.

You don't like it, fine. You don't think it's art, fine. But that doesn't make it pornographic or give you the right to stop others from looking at it.

Whether the statue of the man was based on a real man or not is also irrelevant. The reaction of the people who took it upon themselves to deface a valuable work of art that did not belong to them was criminal, and had nothing to do with "protecting" community standards since they did not represent the majority of the community by a long shot.

[Voodoo Child]

I bet some of the folks who are okay with this picture are also the same folks who pitch a fit over child beauty pageants.

Exactly what I was going to say! Great valid point.

[pacific breeze]

Not sure how the two are connected. I don't like pageants of any kind really, including adult pageants. I'm just not into that kind of thing and never have been. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, tho.

[Reptillycus]

I don't think this photo is porn, but I think that it should be private, family held, belonging only to the girls in the pic.

[jnik]

Hello, folks - I just joined last night. The rationale that the picture has been displayed around the world is no excuse - It's saying that because some have been exploiting this child for years, it's okay for others to do it.The picture was taken in 1998, 9 years ago, not 20. Given the girl on the floor seems about 3, she's probably around 12 by now. If anything, this is even worse than if she were an adult now, and having the picture in the news.
She is at the age when she is more aware of her body. She was (hopefully) taught to respect it, that parts of it aren't to be touched by others or seen in public. Now she finds those same parts have been shown in museums? And it's now on the internet for anyone on Earth at the click of a mouse? Even her teachers and classmates?
Some of us remember how cruel children can be to one another; what if some mean kid prints it out and brings it to show and tell, or asks her to autograph it?
Finding her and asking her how she feels about it would be unthinkable. She is still under the control of her goofy parents, and can't be expected to testify in court. She can't sue, or do anything until she is an adult.
Poor kid - with parents like that.

[sweetness]

^^ I agree that it's not really porn, but it is exploitation. Now that these young ladies are grown, wonder if they have framed copies hanging over their mantles? Or over their grandparents' mantles?

JMO, but the 'artist' should change the title and call it PINK TACO: Open All Nite.

[Grimmlok]

how about "hysteria inducing in delicate people: view with caution"

[sweetness]

Aww Grim, that would take the fun out of everything though!

[crackho]

My parents had naked pictures of us in the tub when we were little tikes, and when we got older we laughed at them. Of course, we weren't spread eagle and the pictures weren't sold as art.
In reality, I don't think that there was any damage done to these children as a result of these pictures, and I don't think it should be placed in the same category as disgusting child porn showing children in sexual acts. But I still don't want to see it.

[Chimera]

tempest...teapot...

[pacific breeze]

^^What I said several pages ago. And still true.

[Cali]

That photo is sickening. Do we know who the children are? Are they hers?

[jnik]

Originally Posted by Calimoonchild

That photo is sickening. Do we know who the children are? Are they hers?

No, they're not. And they are not adults now. The photo was made in 1998, 9 years ago, not 20. The girl on the floor seems about 3 years old. She must be about 12 now. If anything, this is even worse than adult woman living with this in the news. She is now aware of her body, and (hopefully) been taught not to let others touch it in certain places, or let others see them. Now a photo of those parts is in public view? She is probably going to school knowing some of her schoolmates and teachers have seen the picture, Some of us remember how cruel kids can be to one another; what if some mean kid prints it out and brings it to show and tell? Or makes copies and passes them around, and asks her to autograph them?
At her age, she is still under the control of her goofy parents. She can't be expected to testify. She can't sue. And finding her and asking her how she feels is unthinkable.

[Yoko Ono]

Someone with money should buy the photo and burn it . End of story.
It couldn't be worth that much surely. I wouldn't pay $1 for it.

[pacific breeze]

^^Then why should someone else buy it? Should we burn everything that you don't like?

If you buy it, then of course you are free to burn, baby, burn.