Page 2 of comments on When Nude Photographs of Children and Young Girls Are Exhibited, Is It Art or Exploitation?
by Hannah Quinn
Comments Page 2 of 4: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Short skirts, legs, feet, bikinis....all these things can be found erotic by some. I am sure there are many pedos who get off on department store catalogues. Personally I do not find simple "nudity" sexual...especially a child. Yes, some do, but again, many are turned on by looking at clothed kids...and that is just as disgusting...and perfectly legal. This child porn thing is becoming a bit of a witch hunt from the 1500s. a simple nude child does not and SHOULD NOT be sexually exciting...and if you find this offensive perhaps you need to look deeper into yourself. A photo of a young child fully dressed, but acting sexual, seems to be perfectly legal...and to me much more disturbing than that of a nude child simply posing ala David Hamilton or Sally Mann. By the courts definition of child pornography the bible has now become illegal in most states. I, like most others, watched the video of the twin towers coming down, but I am NOT a terrorist. We need to get our paranoia back in check and make some sensible laws.You practically took the words out of my mouth.Whilst I agree that it SHOULD NOT be sexually exciting, the fact remains that for some it is. For this reason alone, we must be mindful of our children until they are responsible enough to understand all aspects and make the choice themselves. I have no idea about the laws and the bible in terms of child pornography. I'll have to look it up online. On the surface, that seems odd to say the least.Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.Cheers, Hannah
All humans are sexual creatures from the day they are born. It's a boy! It's a girl! How foolish humans are...ironic...Is gender sexual in the terms of this discussion? I believe the term sex has many variables, but the term sexual is more defined despite being an adjective. I don't think gender in itself is erotic or sexual in the erotic sense. Perhaps I am missing your point?Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.Cheers, Hannah
To All These people who think taking pics of kids naked, iam sure when you were younger your parents took pics of you in the shower or playing in the backyard. There is nothing wrong w/ this guy taking pics of the kids, So all you complainers Get A Life!! besides he takes photos for a living, he is a photographer, and that is what they do. Besides that when kids are born they are naked if i ain't mistaken. I have said it once and i will say it again there is nothing wrong w/ taking pics of kids in diffrent stages of nudity!! When are you Complainers ever gonna git this thru young pea sized brain?? or will you??Wayne,The difference is, we don't put the photos we take of our own kids in galleries or online where they can be viewed by anyone who goes looking for photos of nude children. The hits this article has is generated by no more than people typing such into search engines hoping to see images of children sans clothing. Yes, we come into this world naked and instantly we are wrapped then clothed and remain clothed to the world from then on unless we become naturalists, and sometimes within our homes. I agree that there is a preciousness in our society re nudity, but 'displaying' our children to the world at large does require careful thought and decision - and it is the point that this issue is complex and requires more than a pea sized brain to 'nut out' that there has been so much intense discussion here and elsewhere in regard to. Of all the comments here which are from complainers, I suggest a mirror.Cheers, Hannah
Photographs are crossing a tenuous line of child exploitation. Anyone who has lived around the trauma of sexual abuse of minors has seen the horrendous hurt and sufferrng passed along to the innocent. In a world of 1 in 4 females victims ans slightly higher males, in a world of child slavery and abuse carried on in a large scale in many parts of the world, it's not legitimate art, it's child pornagraphy. Consenting adults can choose what they want but children are minors and protected by laws in civilized societies. I don't care what the artist says, he is sick and has never seen a fraction of the damage done to a child by the predators of our world. You can pretend human trafficing isn't real,.doesn't exsist, and call perversion art. Spend a week around children who have been abusesed,5years old prostitutes with aids, check the incidence of abused adults in prisons then see how much of an issue is left. Lock em up & throw away the camera for good.Thank you for taking the time to read my article and comment. You've raised a number of valid and heart rending issues which need to be of concern to us all, no matter who we are or where we live.cheers, HannahIt's a storm in a teacup. You're just a cheap glory seeker, Hannah.Thank you for your opinion.cheers, Hannah
Your prompt reply confirms that. Are you willing to debate with me on what we need to do to heal our civilisation?My prompt reply confirms that I was online at the time replying to all the old comments, including both of yours. I am always willing to debate with someone who poses intellectual ideas, not with someone who slings personal insults, which are no more than opinion.Cheers, Hannah
Hannah, you wrote an excellent article, and did a great job of presenting all sides of the question. In today's world, I'd have to agree with your opinion that these types of photos are not a good idea, for many reasons. In a perfect world, nudity wouldn't matter, but we are very far from a perfect world. :)
One could call any and all manner of perversion "art" and have that as an excuse for exploiting it. There is much twisted perversion these days passed on as acceptable by calling it "art". The decay and moral decadence of a society becomes evident in what it accepts and promotes as "art".Where it comes to publicly exploiting children in the name of "art", I FULLY AGREE WITH CENSORSHIP no matter what. It only feeds the perverted. There can be no sound justification for it. And that's not a knee jerk reaction - it is about respect, decency and prudence.
WHY DO YOU THINK TAKING A PICTURE OF A CHILD THAT IS NAKED IS WRONG I THINK ITS OK EVIN IF THE PICTUR SHOWS THE BABY'S OR CHILD'S genitalia IF THE PERSON LOOKING AT THE PICTURE DOSE NOT GET NO SEXUAL PLESUR OUT OF IT THEN I THINK ITS I LOOK AND NAED PICTURES OF BABY'S KIDS AND CHILDREN ALL THE TIME AND I DONT GET NO SEXUAL PLESUR OK IVE GOT ALOT OF PICTURE OF MY NEW BORN NEACE AND SHES COMPLEATLY NAKED/NUDE I SHOW THEM TOO FRINDS AND OTHER PEAPLE IF YOU TRUST THEM OR YOU KNOW THEM THEN ITS OK IF THE PERSON TRYS SOMTHING SEXUAL WHITH THE BABY OR CHILD IN THE PICTUR THEN CALL THE COPS BUT IF THEY DONT THEN LEAV THEM ALONG LET THEM LOOK I DONT THINK ITS WRONG A BIT AND I THINK censorship IS WRONG SHOW ALL OF THE PICTURE EVIN THE genitlsHi Zachary, Well, I didn't say taking a picture of a naked child is wrong, which you will see if you read the article fully. We all have photos of our children, some of which are in the raw, I have plenty of mine in the bath or down at the beach. They aren't full frontal and I don't display them for others to see, but if they chose to, now that they are adults, that would be fine by me. That's the crux of the issue for me. Public display of photos, including full frontal, when a child is still a child. It's not just in the gallery setting, but the artist and/or the gallery owners initially made some of the photos available online. We all know what a dangerous place it can be online, especially when it comes to our children. I wish it were not so and we could fully celebrate the body without hangups or danger, but it isn't so, and children are not able to give informed consent so therefore must be protected judiciously until such they are adults.
As you say, the 'wrongness' comes from the observer. That is something we cannot control, so why put children in that high risk situation in the first place?Just a heads up: writing in all caps on the net is considered shouting.Thanks for reading and commenting, Hannahhi hanna i agree with some of what you said about my article but if parents or a frind post nude or full frontal nudity pictures of a infent a baby a toddler or a child thats not censored the parents granparents and the frind of the baby are there to protect the baby boy or girl and why i write in all cap is couse its easyer for me too see and write
Here is my question:Are We so Naive. Couldn't we see whether it is right or wrong or what is decent mean. there are 1001 ways to hide children exploitation with so call artistic values. But deep down in his heart (the photographer) he has his own agenda simply perversion. I bet that young girl was not the only girl that he has been exploits. There were more. If he has a daughter of 12 years old would he show her naked on his photos gallery. If he would do that there will be something wrong with his brain. Pornographic photos whether it is so beautiful (cause of the lighting and the way it presented) or innocence still the category is Porn. A decent man will not do that.melv2008
Great article. Well done.Very interesting and well written. I'm sure some people see it as art but pedophiles and other strange people will pretend to see it as art.Personally, not being at all arty, I'm against these images.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.
Comments Page 2 of 4: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next