54 replies to this topic

[destroyer56]

Okay guys, seriously. It is the fucking human body, what is so dirty about it when used in art? Do you think this is porn?



Famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci. Was he some pervert or an artist? As far as I know he is an artist... so if you don't think a painting of a full grown women is porn, why would you think a painting of a 6 year old is porn? Guys, don't let those few pedophiles that will inevitably get off to this ruin the whole idea of paintings of naked people. The human body is beautiful and should never be taken away from art.

[Rob`]

Famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci. Was he some pervert or an artist? As far as I know he is an artist... so if you don't think a painting of a full grown women is porn, why would you think a painting of a 6 year old is porn? Guys, don't let those few pedophiles that will inevitably get off to this ruin the whole idea of paintings of naked people. The human body is beautiful and should never be taken away from art.

It's a photo not a picture.

[Dohregard]

Not art, just a reason to fap to sick things.

[Twizzler Mark 4]

Naked = porn.

6 years old = child

6 year old naked = child porn.

I don't care how it's shown (though I haven't actually seen it...) she's 6, and she's naked. is anybody gunna deny that there are pedophiles getting off on that right now?

qtf.

[Corey]

I'm not so sure about children posing nude as art, seems kinda stupid because the children don't have the mind capacity to rightfully give consent to posing nude.

Although TBH all you guys saying that 'nude = porn', that's fucking ludicrous, nudity does not mean porn. Nude means to be lacking clothing, porn means obscene and sexually arousing pictures/video. If you think that a naked body is obscene, or that a child naked is sexually arousing, you're either fucked in the head or not very well adjusted to life in 2008.

[Verrückter]

I'm not so sure about children posing nude as art, seems kinda stupid because the children don't have the mind capacity to rightfully give consent to posing nude.

Although TBH all you guys saying that 'nude = porn', that's fucking ludicrous, nudity does not mean porn. Nude means to be lacking clothing, porn means obscene and sexually arousing pictures/video. If you think that a naked body is obscene, or that a child naked is sexually arousing, you're either fucked in the head or not very well adjusted to life in 2008.

QF real T

[TubularLuggage]

nonono the thing is that the mother is the editor of the magazine and she and her father both had the consent of the daughter.

The kid was six fucking years old. You don't have the mental capacity to comprehend the results and consequences of your actions at six, which is why the age of consent is higher than that.

Is nude photography automatically porn? No. Photography is a form of art, and the difference between pornography and art is that one is just what porn is for.. helping people get off, while art can have a whole multitude of intentions to do to the viewer. It can make a statement, try to cause emotions or just be amazing to look at. It's a case of the underlying mentality.
Of course a mentality is hard to define, so this kind of stuff is basically a gray area. With both the parent's consent explicitly stating it was for the purpose of art should make it clear there were no pornographic intentions behind it IMO.

It's not porn, but it's still indecent.
Porn is something made with the intention of inciting arousal, so it's not.
However, it's not art either. It's a picture of a naked kid. I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression, but this is too far. Sure, some people see nothing wrong with this, but there are sick fuckers out there who are sure to use this for the wrong reasons. That has to be considered. There's nothing gained by having this picture in existence.

Nudity can certainly have a place in art if the artist chooses to include it, but if it's a photograph, the subject should be of the age of consent.

I'm also opposed to the government giving taxpayer money to a fucking art publication regardless of its content, but that's a fascinating debate for another thread.

[nlitement]

There's nothing gained by having this picture in existence.

That's a paradoxical statement in itself and calling it useless is incorrect as well considering how much discussion this has brought.

Okay just trying to be a smartass.

[Verrückter]

The kid was six fucking years old. You don't have the mental capacity to comprehend the results and consequences of your actions at six, which is why the age of consent is higher than that.


It's not porn, but it's still indecent.
Porn is something made with the intention of inciting arousal, so it's not.
However, it's not art either. It's a picture of a naked kid. I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression, but this is too far. Sure, some people see nothing wrong with this, but there are sick fuckers out there who are sure to use this for the wrong reasons. That has to be considered. There's nothing gained by having this picture in existence.

Nudity can certainly have a place in art if the artist chooses to include it, but if it's a photograph, the subject should be of the age of consent.

I'm also opposed to the government giving taxpayer money to a fucking art publication regardless of its content, but that's a fascinating debate for another thread.

There are sick fuckers who will be aroused by a cow, there are sick fuckers who will be aroused by your feet, there are sick fuckers who will be aroused by a tree.

[confrico]

There are sick fuckers who will be aroused by a cow, there are sick fuckers who will be aroused by your feet, there are sick fuckers who will be aroused by a tree.

discrimination = hate

i doubt there is a sick fucker out there who cares for jerkin off to trees and cows

[Verrückter]

discrimination = hate

i doubt there is a sick fucker out there who cares for jerkin off to trees and cows

Not sure what discrimination has to do there. My point is, there will be sick fucks that get aroused by anything.

[Dohregard]

Not sure what discrimination has to do there. My point is, there will be sick fucks that get aroused by anything.

/thread

[anatomy187]

It is not porn unless there are actual sexual acts being demonstrated. A picture or sculpture of a child or an adult naked is not porn. Many parks and such in Europe and Scandinavia seem to understand what Americans do not.

Seriously 6 year old nipple? Kids that age run around shirtless all the damn time and no body bats an eyelash. People these days are so easily offended, and that fact is more disgusting than the picture of the child.

[syk0n4ut_Xo0M]

Bigger fuss about people being naked then people getting killed these days.

[Rob`]

Seriously 6 year old nipple? Kids that age run around shirtless all the damn time and no body bats an eyelash. People these days are so easily offended, and that fact is more disgusting than the picture of the child.

Precisely

When I first read the story on BBC it sounded like it was an 11 year old fully nude in which case there would have been a problem, but it's a 6 year old showing a nipple. Go the beach and there will be at least 1 shirtless 6 year old girl.

[confrico]

perverts and sickos don't care about labels the way art critics and artists do. you call it art, i call it jerking material. same difference

can't blame em

[Creed 90]

wow, I really can't call that porn at all. she's not showing anything lol

I think it's fine, GG to them

[lolcrica90]

some art people are weird, trust me i used to do art. i had to do an assignment once and i used a picture of jessica alba in a bikini to make a point, something about societies perception of women i think, and my teacher was somehow offended at the picture. yet she had a book where two whole pages were dedicated to snapshots of mens' penises!

now concerning this picture of the girl i don't find anything sexual or wrong in it at all. but then again i'm not a pedophile so i can understand why people are making a fuss over this. also i'm pretty sure the parents knew that there would be some sort of public outburst, so i can't help but feel that this was some sort of publicity stunt as well.

Pedophiles seek children not babies and I think that is the point that makes the difference.

you know there have been cases of babies being raped.

[TheShadowNinja]

Is that child porn?
Certainly not!

It's all about the context, context, context.
But then again, this is only a nipple, or a bum

Fully naked and exposed would be a different story.

[Verrückter]

Is that child porn?
Certainly not!

It's all about the context, context, context.
But then again, this is only a nipple, or a bum

Fully naked and exposed would be a different story.

Yeah, actual porn would be her, fully naked, legs spread in a suggestive manner... That would be incredibly distasteful. This is just half a nipple. I mean, you can see much worse in a dressing room with a father helping his child to put on her bathing suit or something, yet it still wouldn't be porn.