Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
Tom:
Jens is right. You can't state a blanket opinion, you should always have your ideas backed up by a few points.
--- Quote from: ledhendrix on 24 May 2008, 02:10 ---Suppressing something will make people want something more as they think if it's suppressed there must be something there worth having.
--- End quote ---
This is also a common argument of marijuana advocates.
Tom:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Dennis Cooper ---Australian artist Bill Henson is a passionate and visionary explorer of twilight zones, of the ambiguous spaces that exist between day and night, nature and civilization, youth and adulthood, male and female. His photographs of landscapes at dusk, of the industrial 'no-man's land' that lies on the outskirts of our cities, and of androgynous girls and boys adrift in the nocturnal turmoil of adolescence are painterly tableaux that continue the tradition of romantic literature and painting in our post-industrial age. Were it not for Henson's primary, almost devotional need to elicit empathy for his troubled human subjects, there's a feeling that nothing would prevent the black in his photographs from completely absorbing his attention and extinguishing his work.
- Dennis Cooper
--- End quote ---
Not even someone like Keither or the most potent troll could convince anyone to see any of those photos as even being mildly erotic.
--- End quote ---
HellStorm:
I was hardly ever fully clothed as a child, I used to run out in my street whilst getting chased by older kids. And I completely believe that there is nothing wrong with this. And the things with kids in the bath, well, there are plenty of them of me and my sister, amd pretty much every person I know, had atleast one picture of them as a small child in the bath.
axerton:
--- Quote from: Anyways on 23 May 2008, 23:52 ---
--- Quote from: RedLion on 23 May 2008, 21:38 ---To me, the rape, molestation or sexual exploitation of a child is the worst crime possible, moreso than murder, because that kid has been irrevocably damaged by it.
--- End quote ---
I don't get this stance. You have on one hand irrevocably damaged, and on the other, irrevocably dead. I know which I'd prefer!
--- End quote ---
Have you ever met anyone who was molested as a child, I have and in all honesty she would have been better off dead.
Personally I'm dead against any form of child nudity pictures being on public display, because while most of us look at it and think 'well it's just (bad) art' there are a few people who are turned on by it, and while it starts out as just looking at pictures for some of those few, pictures will not be enough so they'll go out looking for the real thing. and I know this is a slippery slope argument based off a lot of ifs and mights, but if we ban the art what happens some artists have to do a bit more thinking than "Hurrr, controversy, hurrr'. How is this not a fair price to pay if it means the difference between a child being raped or not.
Cartilage Head:
Let me ask you this, though.. should we therefore ban the paintings of artists like Rembrandt or Botticelli?
Could their paintings of ladies drive a man to sexual addiction?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version