THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Tom on 23 May 2008, 16:49
-
Bill Henson, a renowned Australian artist has recently had his latest exhibition censored under art obscenity charges. Rudd reacts with finely judged outrage.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-finds-support-over-photos/2008/05/23/1211183097197.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-a-whipping-boy/2008/05/23/1211183060448.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23749123-16947,00.html
In addition to that, there are also links related to the story within the actual article itself.
Basically, this raises a fair number of questions, like the thread title as well as issues generally relating to censorship.
How far can censorship go with out being totalitarian?
Can you suggest an alternative course of action?
What are you views on the matter.
-
Whoa no, dangerous territory man.
Instead, this thread is about Twiggy the water skiing squirrel (http://au.video.yahoo.com/watch/2407403/7477439).
(http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6573/twiggy2kv2.jpg)
-
pathetic
-
Damn that squirrel can ski can't it.
-
Is this use of the squirrel art, or exploitation?
-
guys you can't freak out every time someone tries to start a mildly controversial topic and then bitch and whine when inevitably all we have left are stupid list threads. what do you want?
-
Water skiing squirrels of course :x
-
I don't know I mean I'm pretty sure children shouldn't be naked that much.
-
Agreed with Tania. I think I'd rather have heated debates than pointless bullshit on these here forums as long as people stay civilized.
Stay civilized, you assholes.
OTOH, I do think we had a pretty good discussion on the nature of art censorship and how far art is allowed to go not too long ago. It's impossible to judge. The government was elected to make that sort of decision and the did. It's up to the people to decide if they approve of the government making the decision they did and, to be honest, I doubt most people care enough to say "it was intended as art and should not be censored." The apathy of the populace is more powerful than any government and the populace doesn't care about art in general, whether or not this is acceptable in the first place.
-
i don't have a lot to add to this topic right now but maybe i'll mull over it a bit and come back tomorrow. i do find it an interesting one.
pretty much the first thing that came to mind when reading this article was whether or not those kids were able to consent to being a part of this guy's exhibition in the first place. it's a lot like the age of consent, i mean by law in australia a 12 year old can't consent to sex because they're supposed to not understand what sex is so subsequently do they fully understand the repercussions of having naked photos taken of them? whether or not their parents give permission seems irrelevant to me because they aren't the ones who are having naked photos displayed of them. it's not the fact that pictures of naked children are being dispalyed that concerns me but more the fact that they involve real human models who maybe don't understand what they're doing.
-
I feel that exploiting children is wrong, but I don't think child pornography is necessarily wrong, because it can be created artificially.
This has the potential to become heated really badly so let me put this in really really simple terms to make sure no-one misunderstands me:
- Photographs of naked children = exploitation in a pornographic context
- Drawn or otherwise fabricated images of naked children = A-OK, because no children are harmed or expoited
If you want to debate the logistics and practicalities of this, fine, but I'm not going to touch anyone else's opinions on a moral basis and in return I would appreciate it if no-one tried to shove their personal moral code down my throat.
-
I was considering that myself. I mean, one aspect of censorship is "is the picture depicting a crime?" Take the following:
Case A:
A photograph of a man having sex with a naked 11 year old girl.
That's clearly a crime in progress. It's generally accepted that it should not exist because the act itself is illegal.
Case B:
A picture of a naked 11 year old girl with a man photoshopped in to be having sex with her.
The picture itself is depicting a criminal act, but no criminal act ever took place. The man is not having sex with the girl and last time I checked being a naked 11 year girl was not criminal. Under common decency, though, it is accepted as child pornography because even though the nothing illegal happened in reality, the photo, I guess, creates its own reality where it did happen and because of:
Case C:
A picture of a naked 11 year old girl.
Which is where we are here. Again, there is no crime here being committed in reality, but the idea behind censorship here is the intent of the viewer. You cannot guarantee that the viewer simply sees an 11 year old girl who happens to be naked. The viewer could commit a crime in thought, in the reality of his own mind, where he is having sex with her. Is this the level of censorship we're comfortable with? Thought crimes?
Furthermore, why is sexulaity and nudity so heavily censored in the first place? You can create an equal scenario for each case related to violence and, in fact, at most Case A (picture of reality) will be censored, if that.
-
Well, yes in other cases the news media pretty much barrage us with the after-effects of the crime, bloody floors and whatnot.
I'm not entirely sure yet where I stand on this issue, but I just wanted to point out that the majority of the photos were from the waist up, which changes this particular case quite a bit in my eyes.
-
Are the adolescents in the pictures put in a sexual context, or are they simply nude photos?
Nudity in photography and nude photography aren't the same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_photography).
Link is NSFW.
Edit: After thinking about it a bit more, I definitely agree with ephemere's concern about whether or not these young people are able to understand being a part of Henson's exhibition. Even though nude photography is not meant to be sexual it is pretty difficult for it to not carry some sort of sexual connotation and it doesn't really seem likely that too many young people would fully understand the implications of that.
-
I'm not entirely sure yet where I stand on this issue, but I just wanted to point out that the majority of the photos were from the waist up, which changes this particular case quite a bit in my eyes.
In fact, only one image partially showed a prepubescent vagina without any major emphasis on the fact that there is vagina present.
-
Prepubescent vagina.
-
Stay civilized.
-
man even little kids have genitals and the fact that we have such a hard time coming to terms with prepubescent vaginas and ding dongs without getting all freaked out and concerned that we secretly want to have sex with children really says something kind of depressing about us as a society cos being naked is pretty dang natural.
-
That's pretty much something I can agree with to a large, large extent.
What's uncivilized about prepubescent vagina? Why does that phrase even have horrific connotations? They exist. They are existing right now. All around you.
-
I was more referring to the 40pt font. I misinterpreted your post as you doing the thing that ephemere just pointed out about people.
-
I think all the hubbub about people being naked being bad is actually harmful to the psyche of an individuals, and society's views on the human body and on sex in general need to be worked over. But anything that could be construed as child pornography, I just draw a line there. 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. Sex is, really, one of the best things in life. But what chance do they honestly have of a fulfilling love/sexual experience?
As far as the actual exhibit goes, I don't know. I still find nude photography of a child to be bordering on exploitative, depending on the age (anything 14 and below, in my view,) but no actual crime is being committed there. To me, it depends on if the subject fully grasps and understands what they're doing, and I find it hard to believe that someone younger than 15 can really do so.
-
In the U.S. (and in Britain, I believe) even a photoshopped picture of children in a sexual context is illegal. The creation and distribution thereof is treated in the much the same manner that actually molesting a child is. Quality is not a factor (say, whether or not you can tell it was photoshopped.) I don't mind if you want to debate the merits of this particular case or art vs. porn, but if anyone so much as links to any questionable (in the eyes of the law) material, this thread will be removed. I should also add that posting nude pictures, art or otherwise, is prohibited on the forums.
-
Hurr Hurr, Questionable Content
But seriously, this is actually a big issue. Child exploitation is using a child/minor for someone elses personal gain. The man is making money (I would assume) off of photographs of naked children. Nude art or otherwise, it just seems a little off. I suppose as long as the children in question have consented to being photographed then there's no problem, but who says that someone that young should legally have that kind of say? Shouldn't it be up to the parents?
-
See, maybe I just have a problem with the fact that in our world naked seems to automatically equal sexual. We're born naked people. Like Tania said, being naked is just being neutral, not to mention just a natural state of being.
-
Quality is not a factor (say, whether or not you can tell it was photoshopped.)
Hmmm... This makes me wonder, would this mean that 2 crudely drawn stick figures, with a arrow "ZOMG UNDERAGE GURL!" pointing to one, then count as illegal?
-
I tend to feel that censorship of this sort tells us more about the minds of the censors than anything else. Some years ago there was a case where a parent in the UK was taken to court for taking photos of their child in the bath - an employee at the photo lab had taken exception to them and reported them to the police. Note that no element of public display was involved here - only the existence of the photos at all.
I have pictures of my children in the bath; playing naked in a paddling pool, wearing swimming trucks on the beach as teens (these could be cropped to be nude-from-the-waist-up pictures).
There is a form of exploitation that is clearly bad; but there is also a form of prudism which is essentially the inverse of that, and also bad in a somewhat different way.
Paul
-
Paul's absolutely right. And like Anyways I'm confused about what the repercussions of a naked photograph of you as a child are as well. There's tons of me. Like a lot of small children I'd whip my clothes off all the time, particularly at the beach or somewhere like that. There's nothing sexual or exploitative about those photographs, nudity doesn't have those sexual connotations when you don't know what sex is. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out one of these pictures had been used for a piece of art at some point and the only repercussion I can think of is a slight embarrassment (and honestly I'd just think it was kind of funny). I actually find the idea of censoring an image of a naked child quite creepy, since it suggests that there's something sexual there when there isn't.
-
I find this topic rather interesting, mostly because there has been some intense discussion about the thin line between art and child pornography around here. This was mostly because the government used a gatling gun to prohibit entry into suspected child porn sites, when it should´ve been using a sniper rifle.
In any case, in my opinion (and in the opinions of some others, it seems), whether something´s child porn or not depends completely on the nature of the photo. If it merely contains a nude child in it, with nothing sexual or pornographic elements involved, then it most certainly shouldn´t be branded as child pornography. The same goes for any "photoshopped" pictures. Heck, those kind of pics might in fact lower the amount of pedophilic crimes done, since the people with such taste could relieve themselves through self stimulation, instead of having to resort to less acceptable methods.
-
I agree with a pack of wolves. If taking photos of nude children is really a crime then most parents around the world would have to be locked up. They are bound to show there photo's to there friends, relatives or whatever and I think that it's very unlikely that any of them are going to go and rape a prepubescent child because of it. If the picture depicts something foul happening to the child then it's probably a good idea that it doesn't get widespread. It has to be a sick and twisted mind that thinks of doing these things to children, It's not the photographers fault, or the photo's it's the person that does the damage to the child thats at fault.
If nudity was more widely accepted in society this sort of thing wouldn't be such a big deal. People would go about there daily lives and it would be considered normal. It's only when these things are deemed unacceptable that they become desirable to some people. Suppressing something will make people want something more as they think if it's suppressed there must be something there worth having.
-
Damn that squirrel can ski can't it.
I'm more impressed at the squirrel driving the boat.
I personally feel that children should not be photographed naked and the photographs be called art.
-
Jens is right. You can't state a blanket opinion, you should always have your ideas backed up by a few points.
Suppressing something will make people want something more as they think if it's suppressed there must be something there worth having.
This is also a common argument of marijuana advocates.
-
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
Not even someone like Keither or the most potent troll could convince anyone to see any of those photos as even being mildly erotic.
-
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.
-
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.
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!
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.
-
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?
-
No, because sexual desire of an adult woman is something that can be satisfied legally.
-
Then how about scenes of murder, rape, torture, etc. which are most certainly not illegal to portray?
-
Thats true but people are still driven to rape.
Edit: Someone beat me to it.
-
Why do people always look for a perfect solution. We are in an imperfect world; there is never a perfect solution.
ok, with most non sexual violent crimes there are going to be even less people who want to go out and put it into practice in real life.
Also I don't want to be callus but with almost every crime the victim and their family/friends grieve then move on, unless the crime is murder, but then the victim is dead and it doesn't really matter to them. This is not the case with victims of child molestation, I can't explain it, but unless you've met, and truly cared for someone who was abused you don't understand just how much it affects them.
-
There was an artist, I forget her name, who photographed her own children naked (non-erotic/pornographic) and people wanted to charge her for making child pornography. The photos do have a weird, unseen element to them, but they are by no means pornographic. Also, if any of you know who Balthus is, he's one of my favorite painters, but his main themes dealt with prepubescent/young teen girls that were either partially naked or completely naked and were sometimes positioned in ways that could be seen as erotic. However, the images are not pornographic, though some people are awkward around his art. There is a difference between erotic art and pornography.
-
If we get rid of children then child porn and paedophilia will be impossible.
-
If we get rid of children then child porn and paedophilia will be impossible.
This is the best idea.
I vote for Children of Men.
-
Colosseum.
-
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.
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!
There was a massive discussion at this year's Nordic Light festival of photography about the photographs of Jock Sturges (wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges)), also regarding child pornography vs. art - and honestly, I can't really understand why people would feel any of neither his works not Bill Henson's are child pornography at all. They are naked children. Naked! Oh noes! Naked equals fucking! No, it doesn't. We live in an age where political correctness has gone completely bonkers, where publishing anything even remotely controversial spawns huge protests, while at the same time, we are pushing boundaries in terms of sexualized messages through a lot of mediums, but somehow that is accepted. Can anyone tell me exactly what is wrong with publishing non-erotic pictures of naked children?
People bring up the "repercussions" of having a nude photo of you taken and published when you are a child. Can someone tell me exactly what these repercussions are? I have never seen any of these works published with model names, so as far as I can see it is virtually impossible to track down any of the models. Noone gets hurt, right? They will never miss a job opportunity because the employer saw a photograph of them as a naked ten year old either, I would assume. So what exactly is the problem? Am I being terribly ignorant?
Did you read the rest of my post, when I said that equating nudity with somehow being bad is in itself bad, and wounding to a person, and society as a whole?
As far as your response to one line of my post goes: then you have obviously never experienced it (neither have I), nor been close with people who have (I have.) To be honest, until you reach the core of these people, who have been molested, raped or taken advantage of as a child, and you see the irrevocable pain down there, that eats at them and paralyzes them day in and day out, that affects every facet of their life and interaction with other people... you don't really know what you're talking about in this situation. Believe it or not, I don't like being dramatic, and I tend to actually under-emphasize things. But this is the one case where a person would be better off dead.
-
Red Lion: I agree with pretty much everything you've said in your posts - and I'm aware that the subject is getting onto tense ground here, but the last part of your post I disagree with. The trauma of something like that is immense, and it does permeate pretty much every waking thought and action, and it's quite probably the single most evil thing that can be done to another person. But, and I know you quantified it, I still don't think that a person who's suffered that would be better off dead - no matter how damaged the person is, their life is still valid, no matter what they've been through. While I still agree that the crime of child rape and molestation is worse than that of murder (speaking in a very general sense here), I quail at the idea that death is the better option. I'm slightly worried in case I've taken your point too far out of context and got caught up in semantics by relating it to experience, but I read the phrase 'better off dead' further up the thread from axerton in an earlier response, and while I can see where it's coming from, I will defend it.
Edit: Tommydski just said this in one sentence. Damn.
-
hopefully he has a pretty good explanation because it looks pretty clear-cut to me.
-
he isn't (i think) trying to say that sexual molestation itself is worse than murder, but rather the long term emotional and physical trauma often associated with it. not to belittle sexual abuse in any way, but some victims for whatever reason are able to cope and move on and others end up so scarred that it could be argued death would not be much worse since they have absolutely no chance at having any semblance of a normal life ever again. there's probably other things that could be just as haunting but nothing at the moment really comes to mind.
-
I can't give any explanations based on knowledge; but I do know some parents who are very worried about Internet access to pictures of their children, because "paedophiles might use them". I can see that if the pictures were Photoshopped in a nasty way while remaining identifiable, and then became notorious, it could be highly embarrassing; but what, actually, are the chances of this happening for any particular individual? One parent also worries about some paedophile identifying their child from a photo and targetting the child for grooming simply because of it.
On the other hand, it is easy to make the pictures accessible only through a password or a hidden URL, which, say, gives the privacy that a letter has as opposed to a postcard, so perhaps we should simply get in the habit of doing this as simple good practice.
But this has strayed a bit from art...
Paul
-
More pieces to the puzzle, the gallery that was exhibiting Henson's work has just come under fire:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/gallery-under-angry-siege/2008/05/24/1211183177189.html
Another artist defending Henson:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/obscenity-trial-artist-backs-works/2008/05/24/1211183197069.html
I'm starting to wonder if there is an age limit at which people care because, John Elder says in the 2nd article that:
About 15 years ago Henson produced a series of teenage nudes sprawled across car bonnets, in a manner akin to a nightmarish car wreck. Some of those nudes are on show at the Newcastle Region Art Gallery and have barely raised an eyebrow, let alone spawned a scandal.
The original interview with PM Rudd on 2UE, a conservative AM talk-back radio station, in which he condemns Henson's work.
http://media.smh.com.au/?rid=38118
It should be noted that the people arresting and policing the issuse are NSW's police force. Could they be trying save face after the various child-porn issues with a number of high-profile legal people and politicians like Milton Orkopoulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Orkopoulos)?
-
Why not?
Because I personally feel that pictures of naked children is not art, just like I don't think alot of other photography people call art is "art".
I used to paint and draw a fair bit, and the whole medium of photography didn't always seem like art alot of the time, neither did alot of my scribbles but then I guess what is one persons art is anothers rubbish.
A kid draws a picture, is it art? Some people would say no but some people would say yes so on a personal level art is - for lack of a better word - relative.
-
Art is dervied from the word 'artifice' and refers to any object (or 'artifact'), or process designed and manufactured by a person.
Thank you for playing.
-
Bill Henson is actually one of my favourite artists and he has done this kind of stuff before but never before has it received this kind of publicity. Hell my high school art textbooks have some of his works that feature naked prepubescent boys and girls pretty heavily and there is nothing sexual about them and, having seen the artworks that are causing all the hub-ub, I do not feel that any kind of sexualisation was the artist's intent. That said, the artist's intent is, by and large, immaterial even from a critical analysis point of view.
What we have here is photo's of naked, underage girls. They may not be pornographic and, I think, it's fairly safe to say that they probably aren't. They may not be art (or at least "High Art" (http://xkcd.com/257/)), but I'm pretty certain that they are. Unfortunately, when child molestation charges are popping up all over the media with more frequency, the paranoia that a paedophile is going to snatch your child off the streets if you take your eyes off of them for even a moment has been increasing and people are getting more and more jumpy at the first sign of anything remotely contraversial and Henson's latest work is maybe the third or fourth sign to overly concerned members of society.
I like Henson's work, rather a lot to be honest but I do think that he's crossed a line here. Not a line of what's pornography or what's art, or a line of what's indecent and what's not, merely a line between what's wise and what's not. I don't think that, in the current climate of jumping at shadows, the photos were a great decision on his part.
Then of course there is the age of consent/exploitation thing which is another can of worms that I am not going to open, it's been covered already.
-
Art is dervied from the word 'artifice'
Er, no.
a. OF. art:L. artem, prob. f. ar- to fit. The OF. nom. sing. ars:L. ars, and pl. ars:L. artes, were also in early Eng. use, but without distinction of case.
a. F. artifice, ad. L. artificium, f. as prec. [L., f. arti- art] + -ficium making
Thus, more accurately, "artifice" is derived from the word "art." And art in the sense that we've been talking about it is "the application of skill to subjects of taste" (O.E.D.). The question then becomes whether photography requires true skill and whether the subject is one of taste, which is certainly subjective.
-
Not even someone like Keither or the most potent troll could convince anyone to see any of those photos as even being mildly erotic.
1) People can convince themselves of anything. They've been doing it forever. Why do you think watchdog groups exist? Because they are convinced they see and hear things that are perverse, even if no one else does.
2) His name was Kieffer
-
I like Henson's work, rather a lot to be honest but I do think that he's crossed a line here. Not a line of what's pornography or what's art, or a line of what's indecent and what's not, merely a line between what's wise and what's not. I don't think that, in the current climate of jumping at shadows, the photos were a great decision on his part.
Perhaps that means he should have done it. To repeat words already present in the thread, nudity taboos are kind of weird and are taken too strongly. I haven't seen the works and can't comment further.
As for the better off dead comment, whoa. I disagree. Yup. Disagree. Things can change, help can be had. I'm not saying that it's trivial, but I am saying I've known someone, really well, who was abused, and I was surprised to hear it and see how well they've lived their life in spite of it.
On a side, as a photographer, I take offense at the notion that photography isn't art. I know no one has said that photography isn't art, but I just want to state that photography is art. Digital SLRs are very commonplace these days, but that does not detract from photography anymore than fan art detracts from paintings. I don't see how they're any less artistic than paintings of things. Dull content poorly framed and arranged ruins any art picture, whatever medium. Unless that's what you're going for or something.
I know this was given with the caveat that art is obviously subjective, but I feel the need to respond to comments implied or elsewise.
-
As far as my "Not a great decision" comment goes, I simply mean that I am not that surprised about certain members of the public's reaction to the exhibition.
However I was surprised by the headline "Victory for decency as Child Porn exhibit is shut down." Then I saw it was in the Telegraph and I merely smiled.
-
The question here is how do you draw the line between nude photography and child pornography? At what point does any photography turn into porn? The fact of the matter is that nobody can draw a solid line. Perhaps when dealing with a matter that can be so potentially damaging, we shouldn't leave it up to chance. Would it be better to have a blanket ban on nude photos of children, or to leave it to the possibly widely differentiating opinions of different judges to decide what is pornography and what are tasteful nudes?
It would be great if there were an indicator that could distinguish pornography from nudes, but as long as some people have different opinions on what is pornography, it may actually be more legally responsible to not leave the definition up to individual prosecutors and judges that would perhaps leave real child exploitation alone and arrest an artist who has done nothing wrong.
-
Thus, more accurately, "artifice" is derived from the word "art."
Ars facere. It's latin. Neither is really derived from the other but there's such a thing as being pithy. Ars means 'Method or technique', facere is the infinitive form of facio, meaning to do, to make, to cause or to bring about. So an art is a method or technique, 'state of the art'. The OED lists 16 definitions for the word art, including "Skill in doing anything as a result of knowledge and practice" and "Human skill as an agent, human workmanship, opposed to nature", to pick one definition purely to support your own viewpoint is rather circumventing the issue. Besides which, you are wrong. Photography is art. A childs drawing is art. A novelty coffee mug is art. Only someone who has been living under a rock as with regards everything that has happened in the field of art over the last century could possibly think otherwise.
-
Therefore, being able to keep a good poker face is an artform but not "art" in the oils, wax, synthetic and canvas way.
-
He wants people to be dead!
No, I wasn't actually insinuating that people who have been raped/molested should die, or that their lives or meaningless. You're right tommy, I didn't say it right at all. What I was trying to say is that that person will never lead a "normal" life (i.e., one not influenced by the consuming pain of that experience,) particularly if it happens as a young child. Sometimes, it's as if the perpetrator did kill the victim--but only in spirit, in mind, leaving the body alive. What chance do they have? That's an existence that, in some ways, is no better than death.
I hope that clarifies somewhat.
-
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.
This is ridiculous. Should we ban fast food because some people eat too much and get fat? Should we ban cars because some people might crash? Why should a few socially dysfunctional people ruin it for the rest of society?
-
You do realise you've just compared people getting fat to children being raped, don't you?
I repeat, if images of child nudity were banned from public display what would we, as a society, lose? A few pieces of art, and some artist have to do a bit more thinking than "Child nudity = controversy. Controversy = money. therefore child nudity = money." and even if the artist isn't just aiming for the controversy dollar, if all he or she can come up with in terms of art is a few pictures of naked children, then maybe they should reconsider their career choice.
-
You do realise you've just compared people getting fat to children being raped, don't you?
The comparison was valid. You're just looking to attack his argument and dramatize it all - he did not, at any point, say that 'being fat is equivalent to being raped!'.
I repeat, if images of child nudity were banned from public display what would we, as a society, lose?
Freedom of expression? The knowledge that you've got a right to express yourself in the way you see fit without getting sued? Australia has already taken away a HUGE amount of our rights (workplace rights & freedom of speech, just to name a few) and I'm going to fight for whatever rights we still have.
-
You do realise you've just compared people getting fat to children being raped, don't you?
I repeat, if images of child nudity were banned from public display what would we, as a society, lose? A few pieces of art, and some artist have to do a bit more thinking than "Child nudity = controversy. Controversy = money. therefore child nudity = money." and even if the artist isn't just aiming for the controversy dollar, if all he or she can come up with in terms of art is a few pictures of naked children, then maybe they should reconsider their career choice.
art is subjective. just because you think this isn't art doesn't mean other people don't. and if other people find some form of beauty or meaning in it that isn't sexual or perverted or deviant, who are you/the lawmakers to take that away from them because you can't comprehend that?
I'm with Spluff on defending our rights in Australia too; the government is trying to censor the fucking internet.
-
what would we, as a society, lose?
Our freedom, one step at a time. It's happened before, and it will probably happen again as we show only a moderate tendency to learn from the past.
Paul
-
art is subjective. just because you think this isn't art doesn't mean other people don't. and if other people find some form of beauty or meaning in it that isn't sexual or perverted or deviant, who are you/the lawmakers to take that away from them because you can't comprehend that?
I did not at any stage say that I didn't think it was art, I was merely saying that I believe that this one tiny area that art should avoid
I just don't understand why everyone is so willing to throw away their liberties to protect against 'terrorism' and yet seemingly everyone is willing to fight tooth and nail to protect a few photos and painting.
I'm sorry I don't mean to come across as over-the-top-internet-argument-guy, but it's kind of hard to come up with a dispassionate well thought out argument when this whole subject makes me remember something that causes my eyes to mist over with fury.
-
Um, I know anecdotal evidence is totally frowned upon in informal conversations but I don't know anyone who is in favour of the ridiculous anti-terrorism laws. Seriously, no one.
-
I think what some people need to realise (from earlier in the thread) is that people move on from most bad experiences! I almost drowned when I was 10 years old, but I've never really feared water much, even after that. But some people might. That's the nature of being human.
Basically, some people are way out of line* by using absolute views of human behaviour to prove their point of view. Who are you to say that no-one can recover from [event]? Give them some credit and realise that the molestation of a person does not ruin them. It may or may not alter their perceptions, but even if it does it just means that they experience things a somewhat differently from you. Who are you to imply that victims of sexual, physical and mental abuse have a less valid perceptual set than others?
* Have whatever viewpoint you want, but it's extremely arrogant and selfish to use behaviour observed in some victims of abuse as evidence that all of them are something less than you or me. Yes, I know none of you actually said that. I doubt even those who made the posts were aware of that implication and didn't have it in mind, and yet it remains.
I'm absolutely baffled how some individuals try to argue for the sake of abuse victims while at the same time belittling the hell out of them.
I just don't understand why everyone is so willing to throw away their liberties to protect against 'terrorism' and yet seemingly everyone is willing to fight tooth and nail to protect a few photos and painting.
Giving away liberties for the sake of security is understandable to some extent.
However, the liberties of art are all-important to a society that claims to be free and democratic. If you're allowed to censor art, what good is it to us? The use of art has been, for quite a while, to confront people and explore new ideas. If you removed that capacity from it, in any shape or form, you remove not only the potential for expression in that medium but one of the baser values that our society holds so dear.
Plus, banning these pics in particular is just goddamned over-prudent. Ignore the fact that children have genitals and they will go away! I cannot begin to explain how censoring these images really just reeks of denial and fear without protecting anyone and just harming rights.
-
I am more worried about Axerton's absolutely horrible statement. It's not his call to judge whether someone's better of dead or not. With time and the right support & help people can get through some pretty tough things. People can never get through being dead.
-
As for the artworks, they're art. There's nothing sexual about them. What's the fucking deal?
-
Every day on these forums, Est sticks his thumb up the of-age consenting arsehole of truth.
-
Because I personally feel that pictures of naked children is not art, just like I don't think alot of other photography people call art is "art".
I used to paint and draw a fair bit, and the whole medium of photography didn't always seem like art alot of the time, neither did alot of my scribbles but then I guess what is one persons art is anothers rubbish.
A kid draws a picture, is it art? Some people would say no but some people would say yes so on a personal level art is - for lack of a better word - relative.
A lot of photography that is readily available and taken by your average person is generally nothing special (or interesting, really) for the viewer. One could look at it and say "hell, I could do that." But there is also some photography out that incites an emotion from the viewer. To do that takes a lot of skill, even just to know what will look good in a photograph. They also have to take into consideration the framing of the shot, the lighting (be it natural or set up) and what it is about the shot that they want to capture. Sure, I could do that with my little old camera, but if I did, it would be a massive fluke.
There is a certain amount of skill involved in any form of artwork, be it drawing, or painting, or sculpture or photography or any of it. Just because these photos have naked kids in it doesn't mean there was any less skill involved in taking them, so it doesn't make it any less a piece of art. The photographer has just as much right to display them than if the kids were clothed, because it still has a huge amount of effort put into it. The photos were not just candid shots of naked kids, and he didn't have them naked for the sake of it, so there shouldn't be an issue.
-
I wouldn't exactly claim it's preposterous. He didn't make a blanket statement speaking for everyone. He said that this is the case for him personally. So it is not so much preposterous as it is a difference of opinion.
Pro-tip: Making generalized and/or absolute statements doesn't work for either side of the discussion
-
Ars facere. It's latin. Neither is really derived from the other but there's such a thing as being pithy. Ars means 'Method or technique', facere is the infinitive form of facio, meaning to do, to make, to cause or to bring about. So an art is a method or technique, 'state of the art'.
Agreed--this is what the etymologies I quoted said, in essence. And I can appreciate pithiness; it just bothers me when people trade bullshit etymologies to support otherwise ill-supported arguments. You obviously know more Latin than that, so I apologize.
The OED lists 16 definitions for the word art, including "Skill in doing anything as a result of knowledge and practice" and "Human skill as an agent, human workmanship, opposed to nature", to pick one definition purely to support your own viewpoint is rather circumventing the issue.
I honestly felt the others weren't specifically applicable here. "Skill in doing anything," for instance, clearly is describing art in the sense that any profession is an art, e.g. the art of practicing law, Bachelor of the Arts, etc. "Human skill [...] opposed to nature" is more along the lines of what you were claiming, but I again felt it was too broad an application of the term, which was ultimately my greatest problem with your post.
Besides which, you are wrong. Photography is art. A childs drawing is art. A novelty coffee mug is art. Only someone who has been living under a rock as with regards everything that has happened in the field of art over the last century could possibly think otherwise.
Wrong about what? I simply raised a question. I agree that photography's art. I would agree that children's drawings are art. I would agree that the design of a novelty coffee mug is art; I disagree that each mug is art, simply because they're mass-produced by machine.
Essentially, I'm sorry if I came off as pedantic and ignorant (what a combination!). I agree with you more than not.
-
Giving away liberties for the sake of security is understandable to some extent.
Nah. The phrase has been overused, but Ben Franklin's statement that "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security" is still dead on, nearly 250 years later. Look at present-day Russia--most of the population there has just accepted that it's better to have a strongman who crushes all freedom of speech, expression and even belief (Putin, now Medvedev) than a freely elected one who leads the country to chaos (Yeltsin.) It's too bad that Russia's only actually vaguely democratic leader was a drunkard and somewhat incompetent.
Anyway, even after all the strong-arming by the siloviki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silovik), the FSB, the oligarchs and Putin's goons, Russia is more threatened than ever. Ukraine and George are gradually moving closer to the West, the Baltic states have long since already forced their way out of Russia's sphere of influence, and even though Chechnya has calmed down a lot, Russia's fraying southern Caucasus border, particularly the provinces of Ingushetia and Dagestan, is still a powderkeg waiting to explode.
-
Russia is, historically, not a good example of anyone doing anything well ever.
-
I would agree that the design of a novelty coffee mug is art; I disagree that each mug is art, simply because they're mass-produced by machine.
Now, this would actually be an interesting thing to have a discusssion about.
Personally, I would regard both the design and the process of manufacture to be art, and thus the product. The clincher is when you consider printmaking. Outside of monoprinting, printing is really just a form of manufacture exactly the same as the production of the mug. It's not 'fine' art of course; when you take a readymade and put it in a gallery, the reason it becomes fine art is because of the artists conscious choice of object and method of display.
Sorry if I came off as rude! My sleeping disorders been acting up lately and I sold all my Zopiclone to raise some scratch.
-
Apparently where Bill Henson went wrong was not putting his models inside a novelty-sized pumpkin.
Seriously though, why are nude pictures of babies alright, but Bill Henson's work isn't? Babies have even less ability to consent to being photographed inside a giant tulip, and I'm sure there must be someone out there with a baby fetish.
The only good that could come out of this is the possible banning of Anne Geddes in Australia. That would make me pretty happy!
-
Nah. The phrase has been overused, but Ben Franklin's statement that "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security" is still dead on, nearly 250 years later.
I have to disagree with it entirely. Did you know that you can't fly? That is because gravity anchors you to the ground, and thus protects you from its own ill effects, as long as you do not attempt to fly. Or, more applicably, the physical restrictions we have are tools of making sense of our world. Musically, scales restrict your choice of notes to make harmony more, well, harmonious.
As human beings, we're very much defined by the restrictions we place on ourselves. That quote, while applicable perhaps for the times, is small-time in a society with so much cultural diversity and thus a diversity of personal restrictions, all different. According to that quote, no-one deserves liberty or security because we all abandon different liberties according to our cultural and personal values. Your quote is very obviously a war quote, because that is its main application rather than being a practical statement.
That said, I don't agree with many of the anti-terrorism laws at all.
EDIT: My above post concerning the mental state of abused children wasn't having a go at RedLion so much as it was having a go at that line of argument as a whole. I see it a lot.
-
I am more worried about Axerton's absolutely horrible statement. It's not his call to judge whether someone's better of dead or not. With time and the right support & help people can get through some pretty tough things. People can never get through being dead.
I think I may have worded this what I said wrong. I will explain, now that I have a bit of a cooler head: while sometimes she was the greatest most lively and happy person I knew, there were other times when this completely reversed, and it was this change that would make me - in my darker moments - wonder if she wouldn't be better off dead. Hell there were at least one occasion where she decided that death would be preferable.
She did get professional help by the way, it made her worse.
I wont be coming back to this thread anymore, it brings up to much shit that I would prefer forgotten.
-
That hasn't changed my reply one iota, but I won't derail the thread any further.
-
Ah the old pornography and art deabte.
Read this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/)
Specifically the points about pornography.
99% of the time there is a clear difference between child porn and pictures/paintings of naked children. It is quite blatant to anyone who is not simply being pedantic about it.
As has been mentioned earlier the case in the UK with the woman who had pictures of her children in the bath was just ridiculous.
(http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF215-Kitty_Photographer.jpg)
A bit similar to this ^
Is a painting of a child neccesasrily porn? No, there are naked children on the ceiling in the sistine chapel! There is a line somewhere and I'm not the one to draw it but I would say a lot of the arguement on both sides of this debate is pointless or misses the point altogether.
-
Is this child porn? (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/m/munch/puberty.jpg) It's Edvard Munch's Puberty. The girl in the painting(who posed, I believe) is no more than 13. What makes it porn/not porn?
-
Its art, because there is no sexual content
-
I think we might have covered this in parts or in reference, but I would like to consolidate:
I would say that child nudes are OK, and child pornography is not. The difference here is a presence of expressed sexual acts. (if the girl has a finger in her fun hole: bad, if there's a naked man sporting an erection next to her: also bad) I have some more specific guidelines here, but that is not the point.
The reasoning for this is that children are not harmed by merely having their picture taken (though their consent should be mandatory, with the exception of the case where one of the parents is the photographer), but they are harmed by forced sexual acts that they do not understand.
Digitally manipulated images may depict anything they like as they do not directly harm anyone, though they should generally be frowned upon. Measures to ensure that the photographs were truly digitally manipulated, and are not real, should be taken. One possibility is mandating the source materials for any such media be publicly available.
-
I was talking to my friend about this yesterday, and she said similar thing - that Bill Henson's work was wrong because the subject of the photograph (the child) would be damaged by that and that she couldn't properly understand the implications of what she was agreeing to. But I can't help but feel that it's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy - society complains that the child is now damaged irreversibly for reasons x, y and z and starts to treat her differently, child hears this and believes that she is now damaged.
-
we show only a moderate tendency to learn from the past.
I like this line.
The photographer has just as much right to display them than if the kids were clothed, because it still has a huge amount of effort put into it.
I'm of the "art shouldn't be censored" camp (in case this wouldn't be obvious from my job,) but I've seen a couple people state this point and I want to respond in a devil's-advocate sort of way. The amount of effort an endeavor takes is not relevant to its moral standing. There are a great many things that would take a lot of effort but which you do not have a right to do/display.
-
The Holocaust was hard fuckin' work.
-
Aaaaaand we've Godwin'd a fucking thread about CHILD PORN.
Can we get a lock now?
-
Don't know why you take that tone of exaggerated ridiculousness, child porn is a much more serious issue than most of the time when I see a conversation Godwin'd. Still over the top though.
Why do we need a lock exactly? Because not everyone is fawningly agreeing with your dismissive comments on what constitutes art?
-
(http://www.svtgalleries.net/gallery/data/500/382oh_snap.jpg)
-
This page is now the Postcount Club.
johnny c, where are you
-
I'm on this page
-
The amount of effort an endeavor takes is not relevant to its moral standing. There are a great many things that would take a lot of effort but which you do not have a right to do/display.
That is true, and there is also some thing on display as "art" that some would say didn't take much effort to create.
I read an article about a woman who was a model for one of Henson's earlier exhibits. She stated that he went up to her mother (a gallery owner) and asked if her daughter would model for his exhibition. They were both actively involved in the decision-making process as to what the daughter would or would not do, and they were encouraged to explore what was involved in setting up the photos and all that. This doesn't sound like he is exploiting children who don't know any better, they were well informed as to what was going on.
(Oh hey look guys, I'm continuing with the fucking discussion and not being a cockspank! How about we try it for a bit longer?)
-
Is more attention on pedophilia a good thing?
Yes and no. People need to be able to talk about any and all issues with themselves in society. By hiding things away we make many people more comfortable (ignorance is bliss, etc) but the people affected by the issue are so much more worse off because they feel they can't talk to anyone about it. By achknowledging and encouraging openess and discussion about the issue we can not only help the victim, we can start helping the people that are inclined to commit the act.
On the other hand tabloids like the Sun encourage everyone to join their nearest mob to go and beat the shit out of anyone they find suspicious. Surprisingly, enraged mobs don't tend to help.
Noone (http://www.peternoone.com/) will hunt you down. Chances are, noone (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Noone) would recognize you on the street.
-
Why do we need a lock exactly? Because not everyone is fawningly agreeing with your dismissive comments on what constitutes art?
What's eating you? Did I shit in your cornflakes this morning? I think I didn't but I was drinking a bit last night.
My point was not that the thread was trivial, it was that the thread was already about SERIOUS BUSINESS and then someone thought that it would be a good idea to bring the holocaust in, which is kind of like starting a debate about Darfur at your grandmothers funeral. Also, I may not have been being 100% serious, it's something I do sometimes.
-
I find it curious that, aside from the family-history kinds of uses already mentioned, photographs of nude children would be necessary at all.
Beyond "art or not art:" why?
-
why not? 99% of what people do isn't necessary but the whole point is that they have the freedom to be able to do it regardless. photographs of naked children obviously stirs up some controversy because it starts to involve other parties and you have to deal with the question of whether or not it harms others, but asking "why" is a pretty cheap way to try to prove something unless you can come up with a compelling argument for "why not".
-
I'm not actually trying to prove anything. It's a serious question.
-
I am going to go ahead and ignore my “Danger, Will Robinson!” flags and put this hypothetical out there.
What exactly is wrong with pedophilia?
In terms of physical harm, it is quite possible for pedophilia to exist without inflicting any on either participating party. And in terms of psychological harm, from wikipedia: "The acts themselves harm no one, the emotional and psychological harm comes from the 'after the fact' interference, counseling, therapy, etc., that attempt to artificially create a 'victim' and a 'perpetrator' where neither exists." - David Riegel, pedophile activist [resisted urge for synonyms]
Isn't it possible that in a society less sexually conservative, men, women, and children could make love together, free of today's psychological fanaticism?
-
Pedophilia isn't just adults getting off checking out pictures of naked kids; it's adults having sex with kids. Kiddie porn, it can be argued, doesn't actually harm anyone.
I suppose that it is theoretically possible for pedophilia to occur without causing "harm" to either party, but then you have to come up with the appropriate definition for "harm" which allows it. And I haven't seen it yet.
-
It's also a rather bad thing because pedophelia can never really be fully consensual. Sure, the kid may say yes, but in children, especially younger, they don't fully understand the ramifications of sex. They are too young to handle everything thats going to happen, and will just go with whatever the adult says to. In additin, it may skew their perception of sex and lead them to be a little to rampantly promiscuous. It won't hurt anyone right away (maybe), but it will set them up for risks of being much more irresponcible later.
-
It's also a rather bad thing because pedophelia can never really be fully consensual. Sure, the kid may say yes, but in children, especially younger, they don't fully understand the ramifications of sex.
Like spontaneous combustion?
They are too young to handle everything thats going to happen
Yes. Catching on fire can be disheartening.
and will just go with whatever the adult says to
I have actually met kids that do not do everything they are told.
In additin, it may skew their perception of sex and lead them to be a little to rampantly promiscuous.
1. we don't know that.
2. maybe that's not a bad thing?
It won't hurt anyone right away (maybe), but it will set them up for risks of being much more irresponcible later.
speculation
edit: to clarify, I wasn't just being an asshole with the spontaneous combustion bit. My point was that if you're going to talk of terrible ramifications that emerge as a result of sex, you should probably say what they are, otherwise I don't know what you're talking about.
-
johnny c, where are you
It was Louis Vuitton Don night, so I was doing everything that Kan' likes.
(read: spending three minutes just cheering for him while he stood on his vaguely absurd sci-fi set, basking in the applause)
It's also a rather bad thing because pedophelia can never really be fully consensual. Sure, the kid may say yes, but in children, especially younger, they don't fully understand the ramifications of sex.
Like spontaneous combustion?
They are too young to handle everything thats going to happen
Yes. Catching on fire can be disheartening.
Kid, you know this is a logical fallacy, right? You're comparing two things that aren't really similar. Besides, I'd be willing to argue that spontaneous combustion is probably not a good thing, which means that you've inadvertently argued that paedophilia is tremendously dangerous simply by suggesting that the two are alike.
And it's not a matter of "it'll set the kids up to be sluts," it's a matter of the fact that children don't necessarily understand the consequences of certain actions - sex, for example, might result in pregnancy or AIDS, and those are just physical things.
-
Not if you do it in the arse.
-
Kid, you know this is a logical fallacy, right? You're comparing two things that aren't really similar. Besides, I'd be willing to argue that spontaneous combustion is probably not a good thing, which means that you've inadvertently argued that paedophilia is tremendously dangerous simply by suggesting that the two are alike.
And it's not a matter of "it'll set the kids up to be sluts," it's a matter of the fact that children don't necessarily understand the consequences of certain actions - sex, for example, might result in pregnancy or AIDS, and those are just physical things.
Sport, that brings up a question of how intelligent, how mentally capable children are of understanding various concepts. I don't personally have a whole lot of experience with children, but things like pregnancy and sickness don't seem particularly overwhelming for a 6 year old, or what have you.
Both of those can be countered effectively with things like condoms and science.
Besides, it is the responsibility of an AIDS carrier to inform his/her partners of the condition.
By "Like spontaneous combustion?" I meant "As in spontaneous combustion?" There is an explanation at the bottom of the post, granted I added it just 6 mins before your post.
-
How are you going to explain AIDS to a six-year-old in a manner that underlines exactly how serious that disease is? I'd really like to see this because it will be interesting to see how you'll broach the subject to someone who learned to read a year previous, and possibly still has to hold hands with whoever is walking them to school.
-
If you get it, you will die.
-
That's a terrible description.
A six year old might be able to grasp the idea of pregnancy, but they aren't capable of consenting to being pregnant (if that were physically possible). Not only could they not really grasp the ramifications of being pregnant (responsibility for a child, physical dangers and alterations, hormones causing changes to behaviour etc) they wouldn't be able to consent to any relationship with an adult due to the imbalance in the power relationship.
-
How are you going to explain AIDS to a six-year-old in a manner that underlines exactly how serious that disease is?
If you get it, you will die.
That's a terrible description.
We're supposed to give kids the credit to be able to understand the ramifications of sex, but the best you can muster for explaining AIDS is telling them that it's fatal? I really hope you can see what I'm getting at here.
-
I'm close to several people who were sexually abused as kids. All but one of them spent years in silence. All but one of them have severe trust issues. Each of them felt alone, violated, humiliated. Each of them spent most of their lives miserable because of the act itself, not the 'after the fact' stuff.
Kids are still developing both physically and mentally, and no rational, sane person would think they're ready for that kind of thing. Kids are the most fragile people in the world, handle them as if they were made of glass and treat them with the highest level of respect you can.
You're playing devil's advocate in the wrong thread. Be extremely careful what you say from here on out.
-
sex, for example, might result in pregnancy
I assume that by children, we're talking roughly 6 years old right?
Now how many six year olds are capable of becoming pregnant. Also its not just small girls that get sexually abused, and I highly doubt young boys would become pregnant.
-
Why would you assume children meant roughly six? That's just one example raised of something that can result from sex anyway.
-
We're supposed to give kids the credit to be able to understand the ramifications of sex, but the best you can muster for explaining AIDS is telling them that it's fatal? I really hope you can see what I'm getting at here.
That was my explanation for a six-year-old in a manner that underlines exactly how serious that disease is
But I concede, as it's possible I'm stepping on people's toes too much here, as Sox pointed out.
-
Going back to Pi's hypothetical, let's try to establish a forum-accepted definition for the terms used, and call them the constants. Then we at least attempt to answer the damn question at the end of it.
-
You're playing devil's advocate in the wrong thread. Be extremely careful what you say from here on out.
When your opening gambit is "What's So Wrong About Fucking Children" it's difficult to predict what might be in store for an encore.
Probably a violin concerto of Rush songs or something.
I was actually thinking either a discussion of the merits of the Armenian Genocide Misunderstanding or a reenactment of Vitas' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZ_PsULtWI)[youtube] second coming of Christ.
-
Don't get into the Armenian thing. I think I already went on a tangent about it on this forum once. I've studied Turkey's past and current politics, culture, etc., for 3 years, as part of an ongoing AP Government course my high school does that lasts for all four years. In fact, less than two months ago I was in D.C with the class, and interviewed the U.S. State Department officer responsible for Turkey, who made it clear that the official US government position is that what happened what not a genocide. Massacres, but not genocide. Armenians killed tens of thousands of Turks during that period too. No government in the world (except France) recognizes it as genocide. I also talked to the the head of the American branch of the Armenian National Bureau, who confided that "we Armenians are living on collective memory. That memory has been corrupted over the years. What many of my countrymen and expatriates say is not historically accurate." Russia was invading, the Armenians sided with Russia, took arms and supplies from them and attacked the Ottoman Turks from behind, killing at least 11,000 Ottoman troops on the eastern front. So Turkish militias were formed and attacked Armenian militias. Civilians on both sides were the losers. Think modern Iraq, but with no outside force to hold back the floodgates.
The same answer--that it was not genocide--was given by David Cuthell, Professor of Turkish and Armenian studies, at Georgetown University; Nabi Sensoy, the Ambassador of Turkey (obviously); Former American Ambassador to Turkey James H. Holmes; and even a diplomat at the British embassy. I spoke with all of these people. Let me make clear I have no vested interest in the issue, I'm not Turkish in any way, nor do I have any ties to it. But all of my research, interviews and analysis has led me to the conclusion that to call what happened a "genocide" does a disservice to instances of actual genocide--the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Cambodia. I mean, the Armenians claim that 1.5 million Armenians died. By all historical accounts, there was less than 1 million people--Kurds, Turks and Armenians combined--in eastern Ottoman Empire at that time. After WW1, 100,000 Armenians emigrated to America, and almost 200,000 across Europe, while hundreds of thousands settled in what is present day Armenia. So that claim is not numerically possible. The promotion of a genocide occurring in American and British press during that period was, frankly, propaganda against the Ottomans, who were drawn into the war on the side of Germany only because Russia invaded, largely unprovoked, so the Ottomans declared war on Russia, leading France, Britain and America to declare war on the Ottomans. A few years ago, the British government fully acknowledged that it pressured some newspapers to exaggerate and play up the story. Further, the government archives--deemed by historians to be complete and accurate, with none missing-- of the Ottoman Empire are fully accessible in Istanbul and Ankara. Armenia refuses to open its files. Why?
Oops. Did it again. If it seems like I fly off the handle on this issue, I probably do. It's extremely annoying to see people so misinformed about something that you've spent years studying. I'm sure this lengthy, off-topic diatribe will earn me some kind of reprimand or sarcastic comment. Oh well. Basically: this is the one issue where I can say that if you haven't done equivalent research, don't challenge my knowledge on it.
So! Having sex with children. Not cool.
Anyone read Lolita?
-
I think we should all ignore Pi's arguments because he quoted wikipedia, that article was probably written by a peadophile. Speaking of that I think I'll put this into wikipedia's paedophilia article.
The relationship you have with your special friend is a special secret that you can't tell anyone else about becasue they will say it is wrong and take away your special friend
-
I think I feel safe saying that even pedophilia is something that ought to be evaluated with an eye towards context. I can imagine situations in which applying a definition of "unquestionably wrong and evil in every way" towards an adult/child sexual relationship would have a more damaging effect on the child than the relationship itself. I doubt that such a situation could arise in today's society without some SERIOUSLY extenuating circumstances, but I consider it possible for sure, and while I fully expect that after examining context, almost all pedophilic relationships could still be accurately defined as "wrong" or "harmful," I don't think it's a good idea to throw a blanket statement at the issue and call it over and done with.
It's an entirely theoretical and abstract point because I'd be VERY hard-pressed to come up with even a hypothetical fictional situation to support my point, but in principle I believe that the morality of something as subjective as sexuality cannot be generalized.
-
No government in the world (except France) recognizes it as genocide
Really? That's odd, considering the term genocide was practically defined by citing the examples of the Simele massacre, Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide.
edit: this was a test to see if textual sarcasm can now be effectively conveyed.
Results: N
Clarifying: the following is a joke.
also, Armenian Genocide.
Even if I had no idea what happened, I would probably assume it is genocide. And, doing my best to avoid politics here, I'd say that that's probably the boat most of the US Government is in.
-
Are you seriously using the term people frequently use to describe the event as proof of what happened? Descriptions can be inaccurate.
I have absolutely no knowledge of the event, so can't comment on it, but really, if you're going to convince anyone about your view, you're going to have to do a damned good job to be more convincing than RedLion was.
-
Getting back on topic for a bit...
I think I feel safe saying that even pedophilia is something that ought to be evaluated with an eye towards context. [...] It's an entirely theoretical and abstract point because I'd be VERY hard-pressed to come up with even a hypothetical fictional situation to support my point, but in principle I believe that the morality of something as subjective as sexuality cannot be generalized.
Anyone read Lolita?
Actually, I would argue that Lolita is a fictional situation that comes close to supporting your point--or, at least, it's about as grey-area as this issue gets.
When Humbert Humbert meets Lolita, she's twelve years old and just barely pubescent. Though he pursues her (he goes so far as to marry her mother to get close to her), she is not only flirtatious but actually initiates the first time they have sex (and, he points out, she wasn't even a virgin). Later in the novel, he clearly abuses his adult power, often bribing and coercing her into sex, but I've always been a little bit conflicted over that first time. Given, of course, that we take what H.H. says to be true, the beginning of their relationship was more than consensual. Of course, the biggest problem with an adult / child sexual relationship is, arguably, that the adult DOES hold such power over the child, being more mature both physically and mentally; being a corrupting influence or pushing things beyond a comfort level is too easy for anything solid or sustainable to take place.
Ultimately, though, I guess it does all come back to the AOC issue: is twelve too young to consent?
-
Wasn't there a situation where a man went to court and was going to be put on a sex offender's list because he had sex with a 12-year-old? The said girl propositioned him outside a bar and even the judge recognised that she didn't look her age and unless he specifically asked her age (which he obviously didn't; even then, would she have told the truth?) it was an easy mistake to make.
So for ultimately a mistake, this guy is being put on a list which will impact on the rest of his life.
About the photos, I have had this conversation with a number of different people now, and an interesting point was brought up. Would there be this kind of controversy and uproar if Henson wasn't a middle-aged man?
-
But then look at Anne Geddes.
-
also, Armenian Genocide.
Names are deceptive. The Holy Roman Empire was not Holy, Roman or an Empire.
Did you know North Korea's full official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea? It blows my mind!
-
According to the Herald, Henson could face up to ten years in gaol if prosecuted successfully:
Police are expected to lay charges under a recent section of the NSW Crimes Act that covers the production, dissemination and possession of child pornography. If found guilty, the photographer could face a maximum penalty of 10 years' and the gallery owners five years' jail.
Legal experts have told the Herald that a successful prosecution before a jury under this barely tested section of the Crimes Act was highly unlikely. Those charged would be able to argue in their defence that the photographs were produced "for a genuine artistic purpose".
Regardless of the different emotional responses in the work of Anne Geddes versus Bill Henson, both depict naked children. However, I don't think either of the artists puts their models in an explicitly sexual context, and thus neither should be considered pornography. As for consent, Geddes is arguably worse, as most of her subjects can't speak.
To be honest, I think the whole Henson thing is a media beat-up, partly by conservative columnists (pretty much stemming from Miranda Devine's article on the subject, if I remember correctly- Devine is a pretty well-known conservative columist in Australia, and was one of the first to raise the issue), and partly by the gallery/artist himself, which the police responded to so as to not be made to look inept, yet again, by the media.
I doubt it'll make it to court, and if it does, Henson will almost certainly get off.
Another hypothetical question- If the 13 year old model herself (or another 13 year old) took the shots, would that make it alright? Would there be a similar response?
-
No government in the world (except France) recognizes it as genocide.
Yeah, no government except France. Oh, and Italy. And Germany. And Switzerland. And Canada. And Argentina. And Austria, Chile, Russia, Sweden, Vatican City, Poland, Uruguay, Belgium, Slovakia, Greece, Lebanon, the Netherlands and Armenia itself.
(http://www.bitsofnews.com/images/graphics/armenian_genocide_turkey_large.JPG)
Just a massacre.
Nothing to worry about folks.
-
Another hypothetical question- If the 13 year old model herself (or another 13 year old) took the shots, would that make it alright? Would there be a similar response?
Actually, there's already been a case that involved that idea and the couple, who were both minors, were both charged with possession of child pornography despite their claims of not intending to sharing the pictures.
http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html
-
I think we should all ignore Pi's arguments because he quoted wikipedia, that article was probably written by a peadophile.
That doesn't make it any less valid. I am not a paedophile, yet I made the same argument last page. I'm surprised at how many people are failing to address the question at hand and instead decide to jump into calling eachother names and oversimplifying everything to the point of making it look absurd (not referring to you, by the way).
-
Tommy, gardenhead_, I wasn't at all being serious when I suggested that we ignore Pi.
-
I'm close to several people who were sexually abused as kids. All but one of them spent years in silence. All but one of them have severe trust issues. Each of them felt alone, violated, humiliated. Each of them spent most of their lives miserable because of the act itself, not the 'after the fact' stuff.
Kids are still developing both physically and mentally, and no rational, sane person would think they're ready for that kind of thing. Kids are the most fragile people in the world, handle them as if they were made of glass and treat them with the highest level of respect you can.
This. There's a lot of guilty feeling involved as well. Telling their parents you were abused (unless of course they are the abusers) is the most difficult thing they will ever do. They feel guilty for failing to protect their children, and the child feels guilty for dealing such a massive emotional blow to the family. It's like shooting them in the heart. A lot of people never recover from that. Thoughts of suicide or murder of the abuser are fairly constant. It ruins you.
-
Yeah, no government except France. Oh, and Italy. And Germany. And Switzerland. And Canada. And Argentina. And Austria, Chile, Russia, Sweden, Vatican City, Poland, Uruguay, Belgium, Slovakia, Greece, Lebanon, the Netherlands and Armenia itself.
So how is this post in effect any different from my (admittedly dumb, throwaway) comment invoking the Holocaust, aside from some stupid "law"?
-
Tommy, gardenhead_, I wasn't at all being serious when I suggested that we ignore Pi.
sorry, my bad. sarcasm and the internet etc.
-
can we please leave the Genocide think by the wayside? it had only a passing reference to the topic at hand and now it is nowhere near it. and it's quickly degenerating into pseudo-debate. that picture was pretty unnecessary and is really just there for the shock factor, and using shock tactics is not a legitimate way to win an argument, pictures as proof is a great way to help our an argument but that's not what you did no one is disputing whether it happen, just whether it happened on the scale that it did, and that picture did nothing to prove that it happened on the scale that your arguing for.
anyways...
back to the topic at hand... there is something to be said for the "after the fact" nature of emotional and mental damage, I'm not saying that damage isn't caused by the act itself, it's a horribly traumatic experience and it can cause horrible repercussions in the person's life. but I also think that even more damage can be caused by society freaking these poor children out over how damaged they were, some kids can get over this and get through it but when everyone around its telling them that "no your not dealing with it your just repressing everything get it all out" then they start to think well maybe I am really fucked up when in reality they were dealing with it fine.
-
What does the Genocide have to do with paedophilia, anyway? Was it a massacre of paedophiles? Was it ordered by a paedophile? Was there a large surge of paedophiles about after it finished? Where is the link?
-
Back on topic, news today reported that one of the models was approached by the police, in the hope that she would help their case, but she declined (apparently she said something about how she had no problem with the photos).
-
What does the Genocide have to do with paedophilia, anyway? Was it a massacre of paedophiles? Was it ordered by a paedophile? Was there a large surge of paedophiles about after it finished? Where is the link?
Someone made a very very passing reference to it and then someone else posted a gigantic block of text about it, then other people commented on that block of text. It might almost be worth separating all of that out to another thread, if said thread wasn't almost guaranteed to become a shit-storm within half a page.
-
This is only vaguely relevant, but this news makes me happy and I don't know where else to post it:
http://www.caedefensefund.org/
Steven Kurtz is an artist who was indicted by the US government four years ago. The FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force detained him on the day of his wife's funeral. Finally, last week a federal judge dismissed the charges. yay!
-
Steven Kurtz.
Scott Kurtz is the webcomic artist.
-
durr thanks fixed
-
In some support of how reactions to a problem can effect a child more than the problem can, I've seen this happen multiple times in front of my very own eyes. I was a student trainer in high school, which is basically a student that helps with some of the minor medical issues given to the Athletic trainer by, well, atheletes. Anyway, one of the days I was there it was a couple of rather weak-stomached girls and I, and it was a kids day, meaning children from roughly 8 or 9 on up were there. Well as it turns out, one of the eights year olds somehow managed to impale himself upon one of the machines with his leg. There was a maybe 3 inch wide, very clean cut(as opposed to jagged, like when you fall off your bike) on his leg. It hit a spot on his leg where there is a lot of fatty tissue, and as such, some was, well, poking out. When the kid got there, he was brought in by one of the high school coaches, who had kept calm and collected, and so the kid, taking his cue, entered the room with nary a whimper. As soon as the squemish student trainers saw the cut, they, to put it bluntly, freaked. I'm pretty sure one of them actually screeched. Anyway, immediately, once the little kid saw the girls making a big hullabaloo over his cut, he began to cry. Not just singe tear, I'm talking bawling. I had to round up the rest of the trainers and explain what they just did while the Athletic trainer and coach tried to calm the kid back down. Now this was a dramatic change in the child, a complete 180.
Yeah, the kid was hurt, but because of how the coach dealt with it, he kept it under control and remained calm. But once someone else went OMG THATS THE MOST HORRIBLEST EVARRR!! He went nuts. So I'd say yeah, reaction to a situation can drastically change the way a child views it
-
Being sexually abused is not comparable to cutting your leg open. One is an accidental injury, one is a prolonged, violent, humiliating attack. Due to how different the two situations are, I don't think it's a valid argument to compare the impact of people's reactions after the event. People are going to react differently to a bit of gore to how they'd react to the knowledge of somebody being sexually abused.
The more I think about, the more that's pretty ridiculous. There aren't many things that draw a fair comparison to being sexually abused. I just think it's fair to say that sex with children is morally abhorrent under the vast majority of circumstances, much like torture, the act of wearing green on red, and 80s music production.
-
Moreover, it occurs to me that the two situations aren't directly comparable for another reason. Or, it's not so much that they're not comparable, but the conclusion that negative reactions to a situation can make it work is somewhat innacurate.
Since the claim appears to be that therapy and the like are what sometimes cause the damage to children, and not the actual act of sexual abuse, then a more direct comparison would be, to take a lead from StMonkey's example, the injured child's wound being totally ignored for fear of him crying. Now, sure, this might have the benefit of in the short term apparently helping because the child isn't crying, it ignores the main problem of the wound that being bleeding, and infection and the like.
So, looking at it this way, it seems that if you were to compare the two, the conclusion I would draw is that while perhaps giving a child therapy and forcing them to talk about sexual abuse they have suffered might in the short term appear to be a bad thing, in the long run it might very well be the best thing that can be done.
Speaking from my own experience, (and I should stress that I have absolutely no experience of sexual abuse, so I don't know if the two situations are emotionally close enough to be compared) every time I get upset about something, I don't want to talk about it, because that means dealing with it, and that means I will inevitably be upset by it. But, you know what? That happens regardless of whether you actively deal with it or not, I get upset by something more, and for longer periods of time, if I don't talk about it to someone than if I do, and I'm willing to bet that's the same for most, if not all people.
Obviously the way someone else reacts to something that has happened to you will affect what you think about it, but a reaction is still necessary, I think. If a child is sexually abused, then for obvious reasons you shouldn't immediately scream in their face "OH MY GOD, THAT'S AWFUL YOU MUST BE SO UPSET, YOUR LIFE IS OVER!" but you should also not ignore it entirely. Therapy, as I understand it, is about the patient talking about what bothers them, not the therapist telling them what should be bothering them.
-
I agree whole heartedly I'd never argue that it's best to say nothing to them about it, just that many times the (mostly justified) horrified reactions of the parents and loved ones around the abused person probably really don't help, they don't need to be told about how horrible it was and how their life is over, they are already thinking that enough on their own.
but so often is that the reaction the person gets, when really they need support and comments like " it's ok you'll get through this" and " we're here for you" and sure the person gets those of course, but only after a few minutes of "OH JESUS" comments, and this is a generalization. there are exceptions of course. I juts thought I'd bring up the fact that a lot of damage can be caused by the reactions and comments of those around the person, especially in a young child who doesn't really know what's going on, and when it finally comes out they just see everyone freak out, having everyone raise such a huge fuss about it could cause an extreme amount of pain to say a 6 year old? maybe not as much as the abuse but a decent amount to be sure.
how old exactly were the kids? 12-13? I think that's the age were these kids really start to become aware of what's going on, and while posing for nude photos is kind of a large step to take to explore this newfound world, I don't think it's totally wrong especially since these kids had their parents consent. think about it if these kids parents were aware of what was going on and were behind the project. the kids have probably been raised in an environment that would allow them to better understand that what they were doing is art. again a generalization but one with at least a little merit I think.
-
Since the claim appears to be that therapy and the like are what sometimes cause the damage to children, and not the actual act of sexual abuse, then a more direct comparison would be, to take a lead from StMonkey's example, the injured child's wound being totally ignored for fear of him crying.
If we're to ignore Sox's stance that this is an invalid analogy, from StMonkey's example, I would conclude that the medical professional's actions were fine. It is the uninformed public acting on impulse/emotion, treating the target as if they're damaged more than they really are, that causes the [other] damage.
-
^ Whilst the leg injury analogy was possibly not the best, it did make a valid point: The initial reaction of horror after something like that happens can be nearly as damaging as the event in terms of later repurcussions, as Bob said rather well - this is the thing that will grow with the child into a feeling of self-disgust, inadequacy as a human being, and, even if they're too young to understand it at the time, a feeling that they're tainted and somehow less of a person as someone who hasn't been abused. For a 7 year old child, for example, to have their mother be too upset to cuddle them or to be able to look at them after an event...that's going to leave some intense emotional scarring. To have people whisper and speculate about how terrible it must have been isn't going to help a whole lot either*, and neither is a press debacle obsessing over paedophilia.
That's not to say 'ignore the problem and pretend it never happened' - that only creates a whole bunch of issues even more deep rooted than the first - self doubt in the strongest sense of the phrase as a starter - the only benefit being that the child in question may be able to deal with the repurcussions at a time in their life when they're more emotionally equipped to do so. It won't erase it from that child's mind, though - it'll manifest itself in all sorts of ways that the person won't understand. Schimmy made the point well - it should be the patient talking about what affects them, and not the other way round. Unfortunately, not all therapists subscribe to the same methods, and when it comes to child psychology, there is a much greater risk of the child having their viewpoint on events skewed by opinions of what the therapist expects them to be feeling.
This is where my issue with the press's obsession with all things paedophilia related comes in: a child goes through that, they go through hell. What they are then faced with, at every point in their life whilst dealing with this, is daily witch hunts against possible perpetrators, a constant reminder of what they went through, and the constant buzzing of hacks who couldn't write their way out of a paper bag salivating at a scandal.
To call it cheapening is misleading - to call it damaging would be more accurate. An artist takes pictures of children: it represents something, and the interpretation is, as with most art, down to the observer. Yes, there are tasteless images in abundance, and yes, there are cases wherein the artist is trying to make a statement which may be hurtful to some, provocative to others, but what the press does is jump on it, scream blue murder and effectively hack into incredibly sensitive issues that demand tact and a little thought.
If the mainstream press were to conduct itself similarly to this thread, that is to say with well thought out debates on the matter, a lot of thought and no metaphorical excrement throwing, then artists presenting their work would be met with a fair audience, fair praise and fair criticism. What it receives instead is people looking for the most degenerate parts of human nature and proclamations of 'evil' where such statements aren't due, and the matter of the art in question being dragged through the lowest common denominator of judgement. It's there to be viewed in context, not to a backdrop of hysterical obsessing over paedophillia.
(*I think this is possibly why I reacted the way I did to the earlier posts in the thread regarding life being worth living after sexual abuse - largely because after a person has gone through this, that is a question that has a tendency to raise itself all too often - and this is in no way a dig or an attempt to revive what is a spent and resolved debate, because the points that were made were extremely relevant and well thought out, and I respect them - think of this statement more as an explanation. And at no point did I interpret the comments as 'person x thinks person y should be dead'. Just to clarify.)
-
Sorry to resurrect a semi-dead thread but I was interested to see your reactions to this news story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7446637.stm) and it didn't seem like a good idea to start a new topic.
Although I don't believe child pornography is a good idea, I also don't believe that giving people the power to decide what is and isn't appropriate for the internet is necessarily a good idea either. The article doesn't say whether they will only block sites which condone child pornography, or whether they will also try to shut down sites if people put something up (like an inappropriate image on here, for example).
Anyway sorry again for necroing this thread.
-
as disgusyting as child pornography is, i dont think censorship is the way forward. to easy to abuse and extend. with all these new surveillance devices and tracking stuff, surely the police can locate the people who upload it all and arrest them, cutting it off at the source
-
Agreed. Shooting the messenger iis not the way to address the problem. Putting the onus on the ISPs when all they're doing is providing a service is stupid. It's like all that extra time-wasting security the airlines were required to add, at their own expense, because all the federal terrorism-fighting money was being spent on the military. The government has no idea where the problem lies or how to deal with it.