Exploitation is child abuse, and to have your parents tell you to strip off or say it is ok to strip off for a stranger is inappropriate.
I am not a prude (was when I was very young until about 14), I have seen some hard core porn (and even have some porn bloopers which are hysterically funny). Just because a child is nude does not make it sexual in nature (as mentioned before Anne Geddes) however, why have debates about what image is and is not sexual, not sexual, too sexual etc when a simple basis of nude children, sexual positions etc are not permitted. When it comes to children, they cannot sign a contract agreeing to the photo, agreeing to the display in public and the image remaining in circulation and available for public viewing for a very long time.
The case was not strong enough, the DPP and the Police Commissioner stood by the decision of the officers to take the pictures from the gallery on the opening night. Big difference.
Adults can legally consent to sex and can legally sign a contract. When parental consent is required to take the pictures, the subject is too young.
Children over 10 may have some thought and understanding but not when it comes to a fully developed understanding of sexuality, certainly not having their own thoughts when their parents say it is acceptable, and certainly not to sign a contract agreeing to be photographed naked. That defence does not work for underage sex and does not work for child pornography. Some (not all) of the images are soft porn.
Abuse happening in the home can be extended to the public arena. Are you telling me a girl abused at home, who has no self esteem and who is completely manipulated would not have these photos taken when the abuser asks her. It is in indication of something deeper. eg. being in a shop and the dad says to the daughter "stand there and don't move" and the kid literally freezes like a manequin, does not move, does not look around, does not make a sound. The dad walks back and says "move it" and she literally follows, one step behind, watching the floor. You don't think there is something unusual in that behaviour?
Some abusers enjoy humiliating their victim, and it reinforces the victim is worthless and they have no control. Abuse usually happens in a private setting but is extended into the world in so many ways. Mannerisms, body language and facial expressions are power communicators.
Sex, nudity, passion, love are very strong themes throughout history, nudity is nothing to be ashamed of, but again, there is a big difference between a child and an adult.
I agree with your comment about the next Britney Spears, and any parent who lets their child get breast implants when they are still developing, moulds them, pushes them and leaves them a basket case is also guilty of abuse, mental and emotional abuse- no argument at all, and some people would argue physical abuse for unneccesary surgical procedures and medical malpractice for the doctor that put the breast implants in a child barely starting adolescence (I am one of these people). People do care, people know her parents are money hungry leeches who will abuse and exploit their daughter for money, same as LiLo's mum carrying her drugs- absolutely unforgivable. The agents should be the ones trying to exploit and the parents should be the ones to instill morality and look after their children and stand up for them against the agents trying to corrupt and exploit them.
Yes, you can express a lot of sexuality while fully clothed, which is why there are advertising standards to prevent the images of children with the red lipstick sucking a lolly pop in clothing catalogues etc. It is seen as sexual and unacceptable and is seen very seriously.
Child pornography does not have to be like a Playboy shoot, soft porn is included, which includes naked images with sexual overtones. Some of the Henson pictures are exactly that due to the posing and facial expressions.
The argument the quote (maybe not quote) has been attributed to war so should be carefully used is confusing as more people have died in the name of religion than any other cause, and yet the Bible (and other religious texts) largely speak of love, harmony, respect etc (until God gets angry and wants to put a cap in everyone's ass in the Bible: Part 2). Just because something has been used for one purpose does not mean it can't be used for another completely different purpose.
I can't translate the Hitler quote (I will look it up later) but you demonstrate this point. Hitler, painter, monster, words of hate and intolerance, but I am sure I could find some quotes from Hitler that I agree with. I don't say I'm not going to quote Hitler because everything he says was evil. Same as people say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but Ghandi has been very sarcsatic at times. David Letterman, I usually find him boring, however, occaisionally he says something very funny.
It amuses me that you accuse me of being a prude and not open minded for suggesting a zero tolerance policy on child nudity to prevent debate, to prevent issues and yet you are recommending I be careful using a quote previously attributed to war. That quote has also been used by organisations like White Ribbon Day, fighting against violence and using this as the message not to let yourself be abused, to fight for anyone you know being abused and not to remain silent about abuse. Silence on many issues is more damaging than argument, so I expected a debate, I expected people to be passionate, and I am glad there has not been silence on this issue. As long as people are thinking about topics like this, it is getting more awareness, coming more to the public attention, and that is part of the battle. People didn't used to talk about abuse, alcoholism, pregnancy out of wedlock etc. and these subjects are all in the open and discussed now. While you say this quote has been abused, I think it has been ulitised by organisations like these as a powerful message and not just for war. I don't see it as a justification for war, I see it as a message of equality and a vision of a better world.
I'd also just like to add (before I go to bed, I have to get up in a few hours, it's only Tuesday and it's already been a really long week) that I people don't agree with my point of view, and I know there is nothing any of us can do to change someone elses opinion, but I do appreciate that, despite opinions coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, there has still been a high level of respect for each other during the discussion and it has not degraded to name calling. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far. There are some really interesting points and thoughts that have been expressed, I only hope by the end of thread (which will hopefully be a while yet) that Ionstorm sucks (and others) don't end up with a picture of chickencat on a punching bag.
BTW. I don't have kids (maybe one day, hopefully, I think, but I'm scared I'll be a terrible parent, yes I have my reasons, not just the normal OMG I could stuff this little person up for life, or drop them on their head or something.) I don't think having kids changes "validity" of opinions. It may make someone more protective, or slightly change boundaries of ideas, but I don't think a person could have a complete change of opinion on an issue like this. I consider people with kids and without kids to have as much right to their opinion, and I am as interested in everyone's opinion for the discussion, not to see if there is any bias.
Sorry if this post (or others) don't make sense. I've been really tired the last couple of weeks and what makes sense in my head may not form proper sentences.
I am not a prude (was when I was very young until about 14), I have seen some hard core porn (and even have some porn bloopers which are hysterically funny). Just because a child is nude does not make it sexual in nature (as mentioned before Anne Geddes) however, why have debates about what image is and is not sexual, not sexual, too sexual etc when a simple basis of nude children, sexual positions etc are not permitted. When it comes to children, they cannot sign a contract agreeing to the photo, agreeing to the display in public and the image remaining in circulation and available for public viewing for a very long time.
The case was not strong enough, the DPP and the Police Commissioner stood by the decision of the officers to take the pictures from the gallery on the opening night. Big difference.
Adults can legally consent to sex and can legally sign a contract. When parental consent is required to take the pictures, the subject is too young.
Children over 10 may have some thought and understanding but not when it comes to a fully developed understanding of sexuality, certainly not having their own thoughts when their parents say it is acceptable, and certainly not to sign a contract agreeing to be photographed naked. That defence does not work for underage sex and does not work for child pornography. Some (not all) of the images are soft porn.
Abuse happening in the home can be extended to the public arena. Are you telling me a girl abused at home, who has no self esteem and who is completely manipulated would not have these photos taken when the abuser asks her. It is in indication of something deeper. eg. being in a shop and the dad says to the daughter "stand there and don't move" and the kid literally freezes like a manequin, does not move, does not look around, does not make a sound. The dad walks back and says "move it" and she literally follows, one step behind, watching the floor. You don't think there is something unusual in that behaviour?
Some abusers enjoy humiliating their victim, and it reinforces the victim is worthless and they have no control. Abuse usually happens in a private setting but is extended into the world in so many ways. Mannerisms, body language and facial expressions are power communicators.
Sex, nudity, passion, love are very strong themes throughout history, nudity is nothing to be ashamed of, but again, there is a big difference between a child and an adult.
I agree with your comment about the next Britney Spears, and any parent who lets their child get breast implants when they are still developing, moulds them, pushes them and leaves them a basket case is also guilty of abuse, mental and emotional abuse- no argument at all, and some people would argue physical abuse for unneccesary surgical procedures and medical malpractice for the doctor that put the breast implants in a child barely starting adolescence (I am one of these people). People do care, people know her parents are money hungry leeches who will abuse and exploit their daughter for money, same as LiLo's mum carrying her drugs- absolutely unforgivable. The agents should be the ones trying to exploit and the parents should be the ones to instill morality and look after their children and stand up for them against the agents trying to corrupt and exploit them.
Yes, you can express a lot of sexuality while fully clothed, which is why there are advertising standards to prevent the images of children with the red lipstick sucking a lolly pop in clothing catalogues etc. It is seen as sexual and unacceptable and is seen very seriously.
Child pornography does not have to be like a Playboy shoot, soft porn is included, which includes naked images with sexual overtones. Some of the Henson pictures are exactly that due to the posing and facial expressions.
The argument the quote (maybe not quote) has been attributed to war so should be carefully used is confusing as more people have died in the name of religion than any other cause, and yet the Bible (and other religious texts) largely speak of love, harmony, respect etc (until God gets angry and wants to put a cap in everyone's ass in the Bible: Part 2). Just because something has been used for one purpose does not mean it can't be used for another completely different purpose.
I can't translate the Hitler quote (I will look it up later) but you demonstrate this point. Hitler, painter, monster, words of hate and intolerance, but I am sure I could find some quotes from Hitler that I agree with. I don't say I'm not going to quote Hitler because everything he says was evil. Same as people say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but Ghandi has been very sarcsatic at times. David Letterman, I usually find him boring, however, occaisionally he says something very funny.
It amuses me that you accuse me of being a prude and not open minded for suggesting a zero tolerance policy on child nudity to prevent debate, to prevent issues and yet you are recommending I be careful using a quote previously attributed to war. That quote has also been used by organisations like White Ribbon Day, fighting against violence and using this as the message not to let yourself be abused, to fight for anyone you know being abused and not to remain silent about abuse. Silence on many issues is more damaging than argument, so I expected a debate, I expected people to be passionate, and I am glad there has not been silence on this issue. As long as people are thinking about topics like this, it is getting more awareness, coming more to the public attention, and that is part of the battle. People didn't used to talk about abuse, alcoholism, pregnancy out of wedlock etc. and these subjects are all in the open and discussed now. While you say this quote has been abused, I think it has been ulitised by organisations like these as a powerful message and not just for war. I don't see it as a justification for war, I see it as a message of equality and a vision of a better world.
I'd also just like to add (before I go to bed, I have to get up in a few hours, it's only Tuesday and it's already been a really long week) that I people don't agree with my point of view, and I know there is nothing any of us can do to change someone elses opinion, but I do appreciate that, despite opinions coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, there has still been a high level of respect for each other during the discussion and it has not degraded to name calling. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far. There are some really interesting points and thoughts that have been expressed, I only hope by the end of thread (which will hopefully be a while yet) that Ionstorm sucks (and others) don't end up with a picture of chickencat on a punching bag.
BTW. I don't have kids (maybe one day, hopefully, I think, but I'm scared I'll be a terrible parent, yes I have my reasons, not just the normal OMG I could stuff this little person up for life, or drop them on their head or something.) I don't think having kids changes "validity" of opinions. It may make someone more protective, or slightly change boundaries of ideas, but I don't think a person could have a complete change of opinion on an issue like this. I consider people with kids and without kids to have as much right to their opinion, and I am as interested in everyone's opinion for the discussion, not to see if there is any bias.
Sorry if this post (or others) don't make sense. I've been really tired the last couple of weeks and what makes sense in my head may not form proper sentences.
Last edited:
