Porn vs. Art

[TraneWreck]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound rude or condescending but are you even reading my posts? I'm sorry, I'm not talking about the intent of over aged people. I'm talking about your statement saying basically all artists should not at all have child nudity from this day forward, even if the child is not harmed or abused or sexually assaulted in any way.

Yes, I recognize that. My point is that you cannot ensure the safety of the child with any degree of reliability. The psychological impacts of using naked children, regardless of the artists intent, are potentially VERY damaging.

I linked this in another post, but I think it applies here as well:

http://www.crime-research.org/articles/536/4

 

[JFrankA]

Taking pictures of naked child against there will is abuse. Because we do not recognize the ability of children to consent on important matters, we cannot reliably know the will of the child. Thus, we cannot reliably know when it's art and when it's abuse. Err on the side of caution.




My argument is 100% about abuse, so I don't know what "this" refers to.

The intent of the artist is irrelevant, it's the impact on the child. If you can determine with a high level of reliability the impact nude modelling will have on the kid, then I don't have as much of a problem.




No, it's about child abuse:

"There are two ways in which children can potentially be harmed by child pornography--by being exposed to child pornography or by being filmed themselves. Children who are exposed to pornography are in danger of being desensitised and seduced into believing that pornographic activity is "normal" for children. EFCW Position Statement, supra note 22, at 3. It can provide a kind of modelling that may adversely affect children's behaviour and result in learning experiences which connect sex to exploitation, force, or violence. James Check, Teenage Training: The Effects of Pornography on Adolescent Males, in Laura Lederer and Richard Delgado, eds., The Price We Pay: The Case Against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda and Pornography 89-91 (1995).


The impact on the child victim who is exploited to produce pornography is often serious. Children can experience a myriad of symptoms including physical symptoms and illnesses, emotional withdrawal, anti-social behaviour, mood-swings, depression, fear and anxiety. In a study of children involved in sex rings, all of whom were sexually abused, 54.8% of the children were used in the creation of pornography. In these children, there was a significant relationship between involvement in pornography and a pattern of identification with the exploiter, along with deviant and symptomatic behaviour. Ann Wolbert Burgess, et al., Response Patterns in Children and Adolescents Exploited Through Sex Rings and Pornography, American Journal of Psychiatry 141:5 (May 1984)."

http://www.crime-research.org/articles/536/4

You can huff and puff all you want, but these issues are indistinguishable from abuse issues.

And just how, pray tell, is a child naked in a movie like Superman the same thing as child porn?


ETA: Oh, and how can a child be harmed by what Brian-M pointed out above?

So far we have restrictions on pornography containing small-breasted women because they might look under-age, we have an arrest and conviction of a man for possessing child porn when all he did was download a drawing of the Simpsons having sex, and now we have this idiocy too.

I should point out that the legislation in the article linked to in the OP doesn't just apply to photography, it applies to drawings and paintings too. You could have artistic paintings of semi-naked children deemed to be child pornography even when no actual children were used as models.

 

[TraneWreck]

Artistic expression and personal freedoms are being restricted in situations where there are no children are in any kind of danger.

And when that happens, I agree with anyone who will decry that as unjust.

It's ensuring there's no danger that's the catch...

 

[TraneWreck]

And just how, pray tell, is a child naked in a movie like Superman the same thing as child porn?

You need to read that article. It explains that in some depth. Again, the only thing that matters is how the child is affected. I have no idea what specific psychological impact being naked on that set for some unspecified amount of time had on the child.

And neither do you.

ETA: Oh, and how can a child be harmed by what Brian-M pointed out above?

Obviously those issues wouldn't concern me as they don't involve children. If someone is prosecuted or bothered for having pictures of small-breasted, legally aged women, then that's wrong. No disagreement there.

 

[Paradox74]

*sigh* You really want to go down this road again?

Fine....here we go again.

This section from the article:


Sounds almost exactly like when here in America, the US Government had to decide what is porn and what is "obscene". The answer was pretty much the same: we'll decided that.

Perhaps, and this is just me throwing this out here, something for discussion, the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

and

just shooting the child without anyone knowing
without caring what the child's concerns are
without any cares to the child's physical and psychological well-being
keeping the photographs secret or within a secret circle of people
no legal papers
without any consent from parents or the child

Now I realize that this isn't fool proof but it's a much better start. What I've outlined above, I feel, is a much clearer and less "it's my opinion" way of determining whether it's art or illegal rather than looking at a picture and just making a judgment.

Cheers to that! These guidlines by themselves should be enough to separate artistic child nudity from those child-porn-perverts.

 

[JFrankA]

You need to read that article. It explains that in some depth. Again, the only thing that matters is how the child is affected. I have no idea what specific psychological impact being naked on that set for some unspecified amount of time had on the child.

And neither do you.

You do realize that could fit ANYTHING in a person's childhood. Let me go back to my altar boy example. (Now spelled correctly, sorry).

Even if a child wasn't abused by a priest, but was affected by being an altar boy later in life, does that mean that the entire Catholic religion should not have altar boys? Should we have a law telling all religions no altar boys at all?

Obviously those issues wouldn't concern me as they don't involve children. If someone is prosecuted or bothered for having pictures of small-breasted, legally aged women, then that's wrong. No disagreement there.

That's fine.

 

[TraneWreck]

You do realize that could fit ANYTHING in a person's childhood. Let me go back to my altar boy example. (Now spelled correctly, sorry).

Even if a child wasn't abused by a priest, but was affected by being an altar boy later in life, does that mean that the entire Catholic religion should not have altar boys? Should we have a law telling all religions no altar boys at all?

The effects of abuse are pretty intensely studied and fairly well known. To just take one from the article I linked, participation in child porn leads children to believe there's nothing odd about the situation. This leaves the susceptible to abuse at significantly higher rates because they lose the ability to distinguish between proper adult-child relationships and exploitive ones.

Now, if you can assure me that those types of boundry issues were not affected by a given situation, I would have no problem with it. But I seriously doubt that can be done with the level of consistency that would justify the obviously grave risk.

As for just being an altar boy (I didn't know how to spell it either, glad you looked it up), I don't know of any studies that show the same type of problems arising from participation without abuse. I don't know, maybe the weird clothes and the fumes from that thing you swing around messes some kids up.

 

[Brian-M]

And when that happens, I agree with anyone who will decry that as unjust.

It's ensuring there's no danger that's the catch...

It's impossible to ensure that there is no danger with anything. You can't ensure that there is no danger with your kid playing in the back-yard because he could get bitten by a venomous spider, for example.

No danger is not an achievable goal, but very low danger is.

Actual child porn producers, the kind that intentionally harm and abuse children to make their product won't be affected by this legislation in the slightest. Since their product is clearly illegal they won't be spending any money on getting it classified.

The only people who will be affected by this legislation will be legitimate artists and photographers, the kind that use willing children with parental consent to produce art of a non-sexual nature.

Take the picture in the spoiler below, for example. If someone is offended by it, the artist may have to spend $500 to have it officially declared non-porn. How does that protect the children? It doesn't stop these pictures being made, it doesn't affect genuine child-abusers. All it does is penalize artists who make controversial work.

(Same picture I posted in the spoiler before because I couldn't be bothered finding another example.)

 

[JFrankA]

The effects of abuse are pretty intensely studied and fairly well known. To just take one from the article I linked, participation in child porn leads children to believe there's nothing odd about the situation. This leaves the susceptible to abuse at significantly higher rates because they lose the ability to distinguish between proper adult-child relationships and exploitive ones.

Now, if you can assure me that those types of boundry issues were not affected by a given situation, I would have no problem with it. But I seriously doubt that can be done with the level of consistency that would justify the obviously grave risk.

As for just being an altar boy (I didn't know how to spell it either, glad you looked it up), I don't know of any studies that show the same type of problems arising from participation without abuse. I don't know, maybe the weird clothes and the fumes from that thing you swing around messes some kids up.

But there is a clear difference between a child being nude, let's say in a nude portrait of a mother and daughter, or a nude child as a cherub, which, I'm sure in such circumstances the list I gave is included in the procedure of shooting such a production (because, to be honest, most of that has to be included to shoot a nude with only adults included), and a child in a production in which actual sex/abuse/exploitation exists.

I cannot agree in saying no artist at all should ever use a nude child in a production no matter what. Once we do that then we are not only guilty of censorship, we are also guilty of making all people when they think of a child naked, that child is automatically sexualized. No matter what, no matter the intent, no matter the situation, no matter if it's past, present or future.

 

[quadraginta]

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

Because children forced to model naked against their will suffer tremendously. The will of the child, as distinguished from the will of the guardian volunteering them for "art," is impossible to establish. Note the less than stellar history of children forced to perform in non-porn settings.

No one is sanctioning child abuse. You are asserting that any image of an unclothed child constitutes abuse, or should be assumed to.

If you think you can distinguish between a child who is happy to pose nude and one that will be deeply traumatized by the event, then cool.

Apparently those who crafted the laws brought up by the OP we we are discussing feel that they can do just that.

But abuse is not determined by the intent of the abuser. Just saying, "I meant this to be art," does not mean the child will accept it as such.

Of course not. Who said it was?

Because such issues are impossible to consistently get right, we should simply avoid them.

This is where your logic fails. An 'assume the worst' approach which posits guilt until absence of guilt is somehow proven.

 

[TraneWreck]

It's impossible to ensure that there is no danger with anything. You can't ensure that there is no danger with your kid playing in the back-yard because he could get bitten by a venomous spider, for example...

[qimg]http://www.desertimages.com.au/art-prints/australia/images/sunbakers.jpg[/qimg]

(Same picture I posted in the spoiler before because I couldn't be bothered finding another example.)

I agree the proposed legislation fails completely to deal with any of the issues raised herein.

 

[TraneWreck]

But there is a clear difference between a child being nude, let's say in a nude portrait of a mother and daughter, or a nude child as a cherub, which, I'm sure in such circumstances the list I gave is included in the procedure of shooting such a production (because, to be honest, most of that has to be included to shoot a nude with only adults included), and a child in a production in which actual sex/abuse/exploitation exists.

I cannot agree in saying no artist at all should ever use a nude child in a production no matter what. Once we do that then we are not only guilty of censorship, we are also guilty of making all people when they think of a child naked, that child is automatically sexualized. No matter what, no matter the intent, no matter the situation, no matter if it's past, present or future.

If you think you can make those decisions for a minor and live with the results, more power to you.

I do not think I have the ability to know when nude modeling will harm a child and when it will be ok. Thus, I will stay away from it completely.

 

[TraneWreck]

No one is sanctioning child abuse. You are asserting that any image of an unclothed child constitutes abuse, or should be assumed to.

You are claiming that nude child modeling isn't abuse. That's sometimes true, sometimes not, I don't disagree.

I'm simply arguing 2 things:

1) The potential damage caused by using naked kids, even with good intentions, is being underestimated.

2) I, nor anyone I can find, can reasonably and consistently distinguish safe from potentially damaging situations for children. If you have some convincing way of doing that, I would probably join your camp.

Apparently those who crafted the laws brought up by the OP we we are discussing feel that they can do just that.

Then I disagree with them.

Of course not. Who said it was?

Almost literally everyone else on this thread. The whole point of these multiple arguments against my position is that there exists some safe, non-pornographical use for naked kids in works of art.

If you agree that abuse can occur even if the artist means well, how are you distinguishing between dangerous and safe situations?

This is where your logic fails. An 'assume the worst' approach which posits guilt until absence of guilt is somehow proven.

I have not even remotely made that argument.

I posit the guilt of no one, this is not an ex post facto argument. It's about developing a new program moving forward. I have not argued for the criminalization of anyone acting now or in the past.

And why do you think I wouldn't allow them to prove their case in court, as in every other crime?

 

[quadraginta]

Taking pictures of naked child against there will is abuse. Because we do not recognize the ability of children to consent on important matters, we cannot reliably know the will of the child. Thus, we cannot reliably know when it's art and when it's abuse. Err on the side of caution.




My argument is 100% about abuse, so I don't know what "this" refers to.

The intent of the artist is irrelevant, it's the impact on the child. If you can determine with a high level of reliability the impact nude modelling will have on the kid, then I don't have as much of a problem.




No, it's about child abuse:

"There are two ways in which children can potentially be harmed by child pornography--by being exposed to child pornography or by being filmed themselves. Children who are exposed to pornography are in danger of being desensitised and seduced into believing that pornographic activity is "normal" for children. EFCW Position Statement, supra note 22, at 3. It can provide a kind of modelling that may adversely affect children's behaviour and result in learning experiences which connect sex to exploitation, force, or violence. James Check, Teenage Training: The Effects of Pornography on Adolescent Males, in Laura Lederer and Richard Delgado, eds., The Price We Pay: The Case Against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda and Pornography 89-91 (1995).


The impact on the child victim who is exploited to produce pornography is often serious. Children can experience a myriad of symptoms including physical symptoms and illnesses, emotional withdrawal, anti-social behaviour, mood-swings, depression, fear and anxiety. In a study of children involved in sex rings, all of whom were sexually abused, 54.8% of the children were used in the creation of pornography. In these children, there was a significant relationship between involvement in pornography and a pattern of identification with the exploiter, along with deviant and symptomatic behaviour. Ann Wolbert Burgess, et al., Response Patterns in Children and Adolescents Exploited Through Sex Rings and Pornography, American Journal of Psychiatry 141:5 (May 1984)."

http://www.crime-research.org/articles/536/4

You can huff and puff all you want, but these issues are indistinguishable from abuse issues.

There is no "huff and puff". I agree that abuse is wrong, and say that laws exist to address that, and that laws presuming guilt without cause are bad laws.

You are advocating laws which assume the presence of guilt without any evidence, and assert that this is a preferable form of social control. How many other potentials for negative behaviors would you apply this philosophy to?

 

[TraneWreck]

There is no "huff and puff". I agree that abuse is wrong, and say that laws exist to address that, and that laws presuming guilt without cause are bad laws.

You are advocating laws which assume the presence of guilt without any evidence, and assert that this is a preferable form of social control. How many other potentials for negative behaviors would you apply this philosophy to?

Where have I said that?

Let's assume my suggestion becomes law. The DA would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any given defendant violated the tenants of that law, whatever they are.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I have presumed nothing.

 

[GreyICE]

The only reason? I can honestly say that's a reason that doesn't motivate me in the least. Protecting the psychological well-being of the child is the ONLY thing I'm really interested in.

Demonstrably untrue.

 

[tesscaline]

I'm simply arguing 2 things:

1) The potential damage caused by using naked kids, even with good intentions, is being underestimated.

2) I, nor anyone I can find, can reasonably and consistently distinguish safe from potentially damaging situations for children. If you have some convincing way of doing that, I would probably join your camp.

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

First of all, you need to define this "potential damage", and then you need to show that said "potential damage" actually occurs. After that, you need to demonstrate that said damage occurs in situations with good intentions. In addition, you need to demonstrate that there is a current estimate of said damage occurring in situations with good intentions. Then, you need to demonstrate how this damage is occurring in situations with good intentions at a higher level than that currently being estimated.

Without all of the above, your "argument" is nothing but baseless nonsense.

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.

 

[MontagK505]

Here therein lies the problem, only fifty-one posts into the thread: A picture of a nude child does not mean child pornography.

Let's go back to the Superman movie. Clearly, SW, you don't think it's meant to be sexual, but if one person finds it sexual, is aroused by the scene, does it become child pornography now?

If there is a chance that someone might see that scene and get aroused by it, does it become child pornography?

Another question is:

How many people does it take before you cross over that art/porn line? Does it matter who these people are?

 

[MontagK505]

In reference to the article in the OP, how does classifing art protect children from abuse? If your art fails, could your submission be used in evidence against you if someone thinks you might have commited a crime?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In reference to the article in the OP, how does classifing art protect children from abuse? If your art fails, could your submission be used in evidence against you if someone thinks you might have commited a crime?

If the art is ever going to be published or displayed then people are going to see it anyway. If it's close enough to child porn to get someone to make a complaint to the police it will get seen and complained about one way or another.