Porn vs. Art

[I Ratant]

Unless Charlie Laine is in it, then it's art regardless. [qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/swoon.gif[/qimg]

.
Googled....
Boggled!

 

[JFrankA]

.
I couldn't find any screen credit for that actor, to see what kind of a life of crime he pursued later.

I've already posted it on this thread:

http://www.supermansupersite.com/aaron.html

Yeah, being nude in a movie at three years old really set him on the life of crime.......

 

[JFrankA]

.
And some ( such as me) called it pandering filth and crap.

Have you actually seen those pictures? I have. I don't think of it as filth and/or crap.

The point is, how is this decided as porn or not?

According to SW, it isn't because Maplethorpe didn't intend it to be sexually arousing.

 

[JFrankA]

.
Googled....
Boggled!

I agree there.

 

[TraneWreck]

Basically, Trane, what you're saying is that photographing nude children is WRONG ALWAYS. Except for family pictures. Oh, and historical documents, too. Oh, and probably for medical purposes.

Are there any other exceptions to your initial absolutist comment, now ?

Not even close.

I'm saying I have no way of reliably judging when it's wrong and when its right, so nude children should not be used in the production of art because their safety trumps the limited benefit of having naked kids in artwork.

 

[JFrankA]

Not even close.

I'm saying I have no way of reliably judging when it's wrong and when its right, so nude children should not be used in the production of art because their safety trumps the limited benefit of having naked kids in artwork.

That makes no sense.

So, we have no way of knowing if anyone is going to become an alcoholic in order to protect all people from the possibility of becoming alcoholics, we should ban all alcohol.

 

[Belz...]

It's only art if skill is involved.

Wow. So amateur people who take pictures and are bad at it aren't doing art ? Or does "no skill" qualify ?

 

[Belz...]

By inquiry and consideration of the evidence.

Again, how do you gather evidence of intent, especially when the person is dead ?

Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse?

Who cares ? You said it was the intent that mattered.

 

[Belz...]

Not even close.

I'm saying I have no way of reliably judging when it's wrong and when its right, so nude children should not be used in the production of art because their safety trumps the limited benefit of having naked kids in artwork.

That makes no sense. When do you ban something on the mere possibility that it can do harm ?

Again, do you ban chainsaws because someone may hurt themselves by shaving with it ?

At some point you're going to have to give other people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've already posted it on this thread:

http://www.supermansupersite.com/aaron.html

Yeah, being nude in a movie at three years old really set him on the life of crime.......

It is worse than that, be became an ACTOR!!!

 

[TraneWreck]

If those are your arguments, then you need to provide some evidence to back them up.

I've already linked multiple articles.

For the second argument... It's logically non-falsifiable, and not anything that anyone can reasonably address with any degree of accuracy or seriousness. It also suffers from some of the most basic logical fallacies. Insufficient sample size, for one. And then there's the lack of qualification. The way you've worded your "argument", anything that has even the slightest degree of risk to a child is automatically bad. Walking down the sidewalk has the potential for damage -- tripping and falling, getting hit by an out of control car, kidnapper grabbing them -- should we ban children from walking down the sidewalk? Eating has the potential for damage -- the child could choke, or maybe they might eat something that they're allergic to -- should we ban children from eating? Sleeping even poses a potential danger. Ever heard of SIDS? So we should ban children from sleeping too, right? This is the kind of logic you've put forth. Frankly, it's laughable.

This is a pure argument from ignorance. Because you cannot distinguish from abusive situations to normal situations, no one can. Again, examine the international study presented at the US Embassy in Stockholm. It deals with those issues in great detail.

 

[TraneWreck]

That makes no sense. When do you ban something on the mere possibility that it can do harm ?

When don't we? Everything we ban is banned on the grounds of potential harm. In fact, there's no other way to do it.

Again, do you ban chainsaws because someone may hurt themselves by shaving with it ?

An adult chooses to pick up a chainsaw and take on the risk. If they negligently leave a chainsaw near a child and that child harms themself, that parent would be guilty of abuse.

Deciding on behalf of a child to allow them to participate in the creation of art in the nude is a mental state of intent, beyond mere negligence.

At some point you're going to have to give other people the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know what that means.

 

[TraneWreck]

That makes no sense.

So, we have no way of knowing if anyone is going to become an alcoholic in order to protect all people from the possibility of becoming alcoholics, we should ban all alcohol.

There are a massive number of things that children are outright banned from doing (contractually obligating themselves, consenting to sex, driving, responsibly consume alcohol...etc.). I am simply arguing that consenting to appear naked in the production of artwork should be one of those.

It's one thing to argue that nude participation in art shouldn't be on the list, it's another to pretend like this some astonishing, new legal concept.

 

[JFrankA]

There are a massive number of things that children are outright banned from doing (contractually obligating themselves, consenting to sex, driving, responsibly consume alcohol...etc.). I am simply arguing that consenting to appear naked in the production of artwork should be one of those.

It's one thing to argue that nude participation in art shouldn't be on the list, it's another to pretend like this some astonishing, new legal concept.

You are condriciting yourself:

When don't we? Everything we ban is banned on the grounds of potential harm. In fact, there's no other way to do it.

Do you know how many children can be potentially harmed by alcohol? It should be banned.

 

[TraneWreck]

You are condriciting yourself:

Do you know how many children can be potentially harmed by alcohol? It should be banned.

I'm not sure why you think those things are contradictory. What is permissible for an adult need not be what is permissible for a child.

And if an adult drinks to the point that the child is harmed, then they've commited a crime.

We presume alcohol can be used responsibly. If it isn't, liability is incurred.

If someone can give me a clear process or a reliable method of distinguishing between the sort of nude modelling that creates the psychological damage described in the US Embassy report and they type of nude modeling that doesn't, fine, I would have no problem.

Once again, my argument is that no one can distinguish between those situations and thusly should not be making unnecessary decisions for children that place them in potentially damaging situations.

If an adult chooses to place themself in a potentially damaging situation, that's their choice. No issue there.

 

[quadraginta]

By inquiry and consideration of the evidence.


Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse? I'd say so. Perhaps we need different categories of child porn, resultant laws and punishments, like we have for homicide.

What happened to "intent"? I thought you had decided that was the gold standard.

Are your goal posts on the move?

 

[I Ratant]

...
An adult chooses to pick up a chainsaw and take on the risk. If they negligently leave a chainsaw near a child and that child harms themself, that parent would be guilty of abuse.

....

.
An adult gives a chainsaw to another adult, knowing the other adult is a booze hound.
It almost worked.
The guy was only seriously maimed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

When don't we? Everything we ban is banned on the grounds of potential harm. In fact, there's no other way to do it.

Depends on how you look at it. Many things that are banned are banned because the thing is harmful, and not potentially harmful. Unless you are arguing that say rape is only a potential harm and not an actual harm.

As for this, having sex with kids is harmful, no potential about it. Now it gets complex when you try to define kids(see sexting teens for issues with that), so for this lets leave it at prepubescent children. So it becomes when is something sufficiently sexual for it to be unacceptable vs sufficiently non sexual for it to be OK.

Nudity in this regard is rather suspect as it can be entirely non sexual. For example you would seem to think that a nude child is inappropriate but dressing them head to toe in latex fetish gear is OK, or at least you have made no issue that I have seen about when fully clothed pictures are too much.

An adult chooses to pick up a chainsaw and take on the risk. If they negligently leave a chainsaw near a child and that child harms themself, that parent would be guilty of abuse.

Are they abusive if the child didn't hurt themselves though? And either way this is not abuse but neglect.

Deciding on behalf of a child to allow them to participate in the creation of art in the nude is a mental state of intent, beyond mere negligence.

What age are we talking about? Teens and tweens can certainly make some decisions on what they want to do. Why shouldn't they be able to express themselves as artists?

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not sure why you think those things are contradictory. What is permissible for an adult need not be what is permissible for a child.

And if an adult drinks to the point that the child is harmed, then they've commited a crime.

We presume alcohol can be used responsibly. If it isn't, liability is incurred.

If someone can give me a clear process or a reliable method of distinguishing between the sort of nude modelling that creates the psychological damage described in the US Embassy report and they type of nude modeling that doesn't, fine, I would have no problem.

Once again, my argument is that no one can distinguish between those situations and thusly should not be making unnecessary decisions for children that place them in potentially damaging situations.

If an adult chooses to place themself in a potentially damaging situation, that's their choice. No issue there.

Nude modeling isn't the only sort of depiction being subject to control. For that matter, neither is child modeling in general. We're talking about the criminalization of any depiction of children which can be construed by someone as pornographic.

 

[JFrankA]

I'm not sure why you think those things are contradictory. What is permissible for an adult need not be what is permissible for a child.

And if an adult drinks to the point that the child is harmed, then they've commited a crime.

We presume alcohol can be used responsibly. If it isn't, liability is incurred.

Wait. Isn't it an ADULT who films/photographs a nude child? Isn't it an ADULT'S decision to do that to a child? Just like it's an ADULT'S decision to drink and potentially harm a child?

I see no difference in the logic. None. An adult drinking has the potential of harming a child just like an adult photographing a child nude has the potential of harming a child.

If someone can give me a clear process or a reliable method of distinguishing between the sort of nude modelling that creates the psychological damage described in the US Embassy report and they type of nude modeling that doesn't, fine, I would have no problem.

No, you need to provide evidence that the majority of children who have posed nude became damaged later in life.

What you are asking of us is to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.

Once again, my argument is that no one can distinguish between those situations and thusly should not be making unnecessary decisions for children that place them in potentially damaging situations.

I've listed a start of how to distinguish the difference. Have you missed that post?

If an adult chooses to place themself in a potentially damaging situation, that's their choice. No issue there.

But again, in a child posing nude for art, wouldn't the adults BE involved in order to do it? Wouldn't the parents either okay it or not? Wouldn't the photographer keep the well being of the child in mind throughout?

For a producer of any media the model's safety, consent and comfort are first. Adult or child.