Child porn police to investigate Elton John

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by alcohol the honey

It doesn't look like art to me, there's no concept and it's a little too home made.

I can understand how you could not see it as art(I would NEVER want that shit hanging in my home believe you me)..but can you see how OTHER people could see it as art? There seems to be a sentiment that goes along the lines of, " I do not see that as art..therefore it MUST be kiddie porn". And it is that sentiment that is frustrating to me.

[Chilly Willy]

^^ It's not about whether this is art or not. Again: I'm sure EJ isn't a pedophile.

It's about the sick fucks in this world who make it impossible to publish a picture like that nowadays. We healthy people might not consider it porn, but the pedos do. If there were only people like you and me kids could run around butt naked until they hit puberty. No problem. But unfortunately you have to take into consideration that there are people who take advantage of a child's naivity.

This is jerk off material for every pedophile, which is why it's not okay. It doesn't matter that it's artistic.

It's sad, but true.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

^^ It's not about whether this is art or not. Again: I'm sure EJ isn't a pedophile.

It's about the sick fucks in this world who make it impossible to publish a picture like that nowadays. We healthy people might not consider it porn, but the pedos do. If there were only people like you and me kids could run around butt naked until they hit puberty. No problem. But unfortunately you have to take into consideration that there are people who take advantage of a child's naivity.

This is jerk off material for every pedophile, which is why it's not okay. It doesn't matter that it's artistic.

It's sad, but true.

I disagree. Yes there are sick pedo's who will get off on this..but if not this..then any pic of a child will do. You cannot take away the right to make legitimate art, the right to express legitimate art, and the right to view or own legitimate art because a few sick fucks will use it in twisted ways. by that logic (as has been mentioned in this thread already) you would have to practically keep kids under lock and key and in something akin to burqas. And the pedo's would STILL find something to jerk off to. There will always be jerk-off material for the pedo's-it is the nature of that beast.

[Chilly Willy]

^^ There's a difference between a burka and a spread eagle photograph of your little girl all over the internet.

If pedos can jerk off to anything, why is there child porn?

Even in art there have to be limitations if it violates the rights of others.

[Voodoo Child]

I swear I had to look closely because at first glance I thought the girl was peeing on the younger child.
I don't see it as arty. Maybe I am not *worldy* enough but it looks cheap and nasty to me. Never mind the naked spread eagle kid on the floor.

[Voodoo Child]

hehe chilly and I said spread eagle at nearly the same time.

[yaruar]

Originally Posted by Mookie

^^^exactly.

it also leads me to believe that the photog exploited this in the name of "art", but it looks to me like he's just a perv who is irresponsibly putting "art" out there that is calling forth all sorts of people. it pains me to imaginehow many people go see this type of "art" so they can get off on it. and THAT, is what gives it porn status in my book.

It's interesting that you assume it's a he, when Nan Goldin (the artist in question) is a woman and a very talented one at that.

[aabbcc]

Originally Posted by Voodoo Child

I swear I had to look closely because at first glance I thought the girl was peeing on the younger child.
I don't see it as arty. Maybe I am not *worldy* enough but it looks cheap and nasty to me. Never mind the naked spread eagle kid on the floor.

I don't really care for it either.

[yaruar]

Originally Posted by 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!

That's actually the point of the photograph, Nan's work is pretty much designed to make the person uncomfortable. So it's obviously succeeded.

Art isn't just about nice pretty things, it's about all aspects of life. Personally my favourite artist is Joel-Peter Witkin and some of his best work is reproductions of classic scenes in art using corpses and body parts. It's certainly not to everyones taste, that's for sure.

[Chilly Willy]

Originally Posted by yaruar

That's actually the point of the photograph, Nan's work is pretty much designed to make the person uncomfortable. So it's obviously succeeded.

That's exploitation in my book. Make people uncomfortable without using children. Be bloody, be pornographic, be gross, be cruel, be whatever.

If you can't achieve that without portraying kids in an explicite way you're no artist anyway.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

^^ There's a difference between a burka and a spread eagle photograph of your little girl all over the internet.

If pedos can jerk off to anything, why is there child porn?

[b]Even in art there have to be limitations if it violates the rights of others.[b]

Well here is where we disagree-where to 'draw the line' so to speak. And the burqa thing was just making a point. At what point do you draw the line? Pedo's can jerk off to practically anything..just given the choice and opportunity, of course they are going to go for what is more 'explicit' and is closer to what they want (sex with a child)..hence their desire for child porn. But again if what they really want is not available(kiddie porn, or worse yet, a real live child to abuse), then they will settle for the next best thing. The problem comes up when the 'next best thing' for the pedos is what a normal person(not EVERY normal person mind you) could consider to be 'art'.

If you keep banning things that can turn a pedo perv on..then where does it end? Eventually the 'next best thing' for the pervo ped will simply be a child in a bathing suit. What to do then, ban children in bathing suits? It would never end.


*this whole thing SUCKS cause it almost seems like I am defending the peds! WAAHHH!!

[Voodoo Child]

I just think there is a line between tacky and tasteful and that pic is downright tacky. Back to the topic of Elton being investigated though, I think that is a bit much.

[Sojiita]

Well at least we have gotten into a discussion of 'what is exploitation, what is art? etc. See we are not just jealous bitter fatties snarking about Whoregelina..we talkin' about educumacated subjekts! :;

[yaruar]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

That's exploitation in my book. Make people uncomfortable without using children. Be bloody, be pornographic, be gross, be cruel, be whatever.

If you can't achieve that without portraying kids in an explicite way you're no artist anyway.

THe picture has achieved a lot more than that though. It askes a lot of questions of the viewer and of society in general. To me the main question it asks is answered in this thread and that is to do with the way in which modern society has sexualised children. People mentioned in this thread were too scared to touch a naked child which wasn't their own or even bathe with their own children. This is the problem, not the photograph..... To me anyway. The fact that 2 children just playing in the way that children do can be turned into something disturbing and sexual is the crux of the problem here, and in this respect Nan is the eyes of society rather than the pornographer?

[Chilly Willy]

Originally Posted by Sojiita

Well here is where we disagree-where to 'draw the line' so to speak. And the burqa thing was just making a point. At what point do you draw the line? Pedo's can jerk off to practically anything..just given the choice and opportunity, of course they are going to go for what is more 'explicit' and is closer to what they want (sex with a child)..hence their desire for child porn. But again if what they really want is not available(kiddie porn, or worse yet, a real live child to abuse), then they will settle for the next best thing. The problem comes up when the 'next best thing' for the pedos is what a normal person(not EVERY normal person mind you) could consider to be 'art'.

If you keep banning things that can turn a pedo perv on..then where does it end? Eventually the 'next best thing' for the pervo ped will simply be a child in a bathing suit. What to do then, ban children in bathing suits? It would never end.


*this whole thing SUCKS cause it almost seems like I am defending the peds! WAAHHH!!

Well, a pink taco shot of a five year old. That's where I draw the line.

I'm super liberal with this kind of thing. In Europe all the kiddies are naked all the time. It was on American tv that I first saw a blurred out butt crack of a baby, and I found that disturbing. Why blur a butt crack?

Anyway, this is an explicite pose. Her spread out vagina is the center of the picture. Naked kiddies running around in natural poses - no problem. As I said, I have a million naked pix of my nephews.

If this is art and the vagina of the girl plays no role in it, why not take a shot where it isn't spread open wide? It's a scheme. Overstep boundaries and you're considered an artist. I say: If you can't be an artist without exploiting children, you're no artist to begin with.