Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

  • 19 Jan 2022, 00:59
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?  (Read 28084 times)

bob, just bob

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
Re: Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
« Reply #150 on: 29 May 2008, 13:50 »

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.
Damn, you're going to have to dump her near her birthday, tough break.


  • Plantmonster
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
« Reply #151 on: 29 May 2008, 14:38 »

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.


  • The Tickler
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 975
Re: Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
« Reply #152 on: 29 May 2008, 15:06 »

^ 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.)


  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,979
Re: Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
« Reply #153 on: 10 Jun 2008, 12:26 »

Sorry to resurrect a semi-dead thread but I was interested to see your reactions to this news story 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.
There's this really handy "other thing" I'm going to write as a footnote to my abstract that I can probably explore these issues in. I think I'll call it my "dissertation."


  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
Re: Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
« Reply #154 on: 10 Jun 2008, 13:34 »

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


  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 877
Re: Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
« Reply #155 on: 10 Jun 2008, 13:52 »

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.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who do not.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up