Child porn police to investigate Elton John

[AliceInWonderland]

^ yeah i agree, im not a pedo but i never ever would feel comfortable looking a pic like that; i dont even look at my pets private parts!

[sweetness]

^^ I know what you mean, Alice. For some reason my cat loves to put her butt in my face though!

[DoveFeatheredRaven]

Pedo Michael Jackson is still walking around but they are possibly going after EJ for this.

Ridiculous.

[Honey]

Originally Posted by Lily

Wait, he's gay and the pic is of two GIRLS?

I'm confused

But just coz he is gay doesn't mean he likes boys. He likes men...I hope.

(Sorry if I mis-read what you wrote though)

[sweetness]

Originally Posted by DoveFeatheredRaven

Pedo Michael Jackson is still walking around but they are possibly going after EJ for this.

Ridiculous.

ITA. Elton John may be a lot of things, but pedophile is not one of them.

He's just got really bad taste if that's the kind of 'art' he likes. Who knows though, maybe someone gave it to him?

[LaSchifosaVita]

Originally Posted by sweetness

He's just got really bad taste if that's the kind of 'art' he likes. Who knows though, maybe someone gave it to him?

Nan Goldin is probably a fairly big name in the sort of social circles I can picture Elton John hanging out in. This isn't exactly a picture that I'd normally associate with her. Most of her work, that I'm familiar with, is related to the drug and gay subcultures in the 80's. I haven't looked at any of her photographs in a long time. I know I own one of her books somewhere, and I wonder if it's in there (though I looked at the thing enough times that you'd think I'd recognize it if I had seen it).

[piperdiva]

That is kiddie porn, not art.
Poor kids.

[sweet and sexy]

After clicking on Twitchy's link I must say I can see why folks might be nervous about that photo.

(Thanks for the link Twitchy by the way. )

[Laxmobster]

Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland

i dont even look at my pets private parts!

I still feel uncomfortable with my pets being around me while I'm naked. When I was younger I used to throw a towel over my dog's face while I changed clothes.

[pacific breeze]

I am amazed that people are calling Elton John a pedophile on the basis of buying the work of a well-known photographer and donating it to a museum. I won't even begin to guess at the hidden agendas at work responsible for the "investigation" in the UK, but I'm willing to bet that a single charge will never be laid.

Never mind that I find the photo charming and playful and NOT AT ALL SEXUAL. God, what is the world coming to that people see sex in that photo? Just look at the expressions on their faces, and their eyes. They tell you all you need to know. One of them is wearing underpants for heaven's sakes! To me, it shows the joy and curiousity and exploration of childhood, nothing more.

I find it disturbing, and very, very sad that some people would have EJ hung, drawn and quartered on the basis of a one photo that he likely had little to do with. The man collects literally millions of things, is a shopaholic, and probably had an assistant pick the photo and send it. But hey, let's call him a pedophile and smear his reputation because we need to make someone pay for our fear of sex and sexuality.

If that pic showed those kids with guns pointing at each other's heads, there would be nary a peep out of the people calling for Elton's hide right now.

[Honey]

Originally Posted by Laxmobster

I still feel uncomfortable with my pets being around me while I'm naked. When I was younger I used to throw a towel over my dog's face while I changed clothes.

That made me laugh Bless!

I don't mind being naked infront of my pets at all. Maybe I'm nuts

[sweetness]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

I am amazed that people are calling Elton John a pedophile on the basis of buying the work of a well-known photographer and donating it to a museum. I won't even begin to guess at the hidden agendas at work responsible for the "investigation" in the UK, but I'm willing to bet that a single charge will never be laid.

Never mind that I find the photo charming and playful and NOT AT ALL SEXUAL. God, what is the world coming to that people see sex in that photo? Just look at the expressions on their faces, and their eyes. They tell you all you need to know. One of them is wearing underpants for heaven's sakes! To me, it shows the joy and curiousity and exploration of childhood, nothing more.

I find it disturbing, and very, very sad that some people would have EJ hung, drawn and quartered on the basis of a one photo that he likely had little to do with. The man collects literally millions of things, is a shopaholic, and probably had an assistant pick the photo and send it. But hey, let's call him a pedophile and smear his reputation because we need to make someone pay for our fear of sex and sexuality.

If that pic showed those kids with guns pointing at each other's heads, there would be nary a peep out of the people calling for Elton's hide right now.

I really don't think EJ is a pedophile, but that picture is totally inappropriate IMO. The little girl is lying on the floor in the nude with her legs spread. No, this is not sexual to you or me, but you're damn right it is to some freaks out there!! As a parent there's no way in hell I'd EVER let a picture be taken like this of my little girl for the enjoyment of strangers, sexual or not! It's very sad, but yes, there are plenty of disturbed people out there who would jack off to it. Plus, what if the little girl is really embarassed about it when she gets older? She's not a thing, she's a human and deserves a little more respect than that.

It's not about fear of sexuality, it's about protecting innocent children like we're supposed to.

[pacific breeze]

Well, it's been proven time and time again that a pedophile can become aroused simply at the sight of a child so are you suggesting that all children be kept out of sight all the time in case someone has an urge they shouldn't? That's what your argument amount to, really. It's just not doable. The parents of those girls signed a release form, that is the law, and whether we like it or not, they are the guardians of their children even if some might disagree with their decisions.

[MrsMarsters]

I really don't see how its art, seems more like crappy art imo. I honestly do not really think it is all that "sexual", but at the same time I can understand why people would get upset.

[sweetness]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

Well, it's been proven time and time again that a pedophile can become aroused simply at the sight of a child so are you suggesting that all children be kept out of sight all the time in case someone has an urge they shouldn't? That's what your argument amount to, really. It's just not doable. The parents of those girls signed a release form, that is the law, and whether we like it or not, they are the guardians of their children even if some might disagree with their decisions.

Absolutely not, that's ridiculous! But I happen to have 2 little girls and there's not a day in this world I would ever allow a picture to be taken and publicized of them nude and spread eagle. But perhaps that's just me.