Imagine, a guy arrested for taking pictures at girl's soccer match! Is he guilty?

[Jerome Marot]

JA League City man who once worked as a pharmacist at a Webster hospital has pleaded guilty to a charge of improper photography. Paul Guy Clark Jr., 65, was sentenced to four years deferred adjudication and fined $500. He is expected to report monthly to a probation officer and do some community service, Harris County prosecutors said. He also has been prohibited from visitng any place where children might congregate.

It is the privilege of the State of Texas to draft laws as they see fit, but there is certainly no scientific agreement as to whether there is any link between viewing child pornography and perpetration of child sexual abuse.

From Wikipedia:

Dr. Milton Diamond from the University of Hawaii shows evidence that "Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse".

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose." Diamond suggests to provide artificially created child pornography that did not victimize any real children.

"If availability of pornography can reduce sex crimes, it is because the use of certain forms of pornography to certain potential offenders is functionally equivalent to the commission of certain types of sex offences: both satisfy the need for psychosexual stimulants leading to sexual enjoyment and orgasm through masturbation. If these potential offenders have the option, they prefer to use pornography because it is more convenient, unharmful and undangerous.

In any case, the bulk of sexual abuse of children does not come from photographers but from members of the same family, and by a very wide margin.

 

[Asher Kelman]

In any case, the bulk of sexual abuse of children does not come from photographers but from members of the same family, and by a very wide margin.

Jerome,

Correct and it's worth emphasizing!

When the man living with a young girl's mother is not the biological father, then there's no natural inhibition of attraction towards the girl as she matures in that home. Up to 66% of such children end up groomed, seduced and molested by girl's mother's new mate, even after the couple marries! Mothers are either ignorant, in denial or actually use the daughter as a bait or a magnet for keeping their new partner in life. This, if only half true, is likely to be the largest source of child molestation in our societies. Again, photography is unlikely to ever pose such risks as the intimate close relationships in parenting, scoutmaster, private tutoring and the like cannot occur with anonymous and happenstance street photography.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Jerome,

When the man living with a young girls mother is not the biological father, then there's no natural inhibition of attraction towards the girl as she matures in that home. Up to 66% of such children end up groomed, seduced and molested by girl's mother's new mate, even after the couple marries! Mothers are either ignorant, in denial or actually use the daughter as a bait or a magnet for keeping their new partner in life. This, if only half true, is likely to be the largest source of child molestation in our societies. Again, photography is unlikely to ever pose such risks as intimate close relationships as parenting, scoutmaster, private tutoring and the like cannot occur with anonymous and happenstance street photography.

Asher

here is some UK stats

Research statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse

Child abuse and neglect in the UK today (Radford et al, 2011) is a major piece of NSPCC research which interviewed 1,761 young adults aged 18-24 years; 2,275 children aged 11-17 years and 2,160 parents of children aged under 11.

Below are the key findings on child sexual abuse.


Experience of some form of sexual abuse (see Table 5.2)

Nearly a quarter of young adults (24.1%) experienced sexual abuse (including contact and non-contact), by an adult or by a peer during childhood.

One in six children aged 11-17 (16.5%) have experienced sexual abuse.

Almost one in 10 children aged 11-17 (9.4%) have experienced sexual abuse in the past year. Teenage girls aged between 15 and 17 years reported the highest past year rates of sexual abuse.

Experience of contact sexual abuse (see Table 5.2)

One in nine young adults (11.3%) experienced contact sexual abuse during childhood.

One in 20 children aged 11-17 (4.8%) have experienced contact sexual abuse.

Two thirds (65.9%) of contact sexual abuse experienced by children aged 0-17 was perpetrated by someone aged under 18.



More than one in three children aged 11-17 (34%) who experienced contact sexual abuse by an adult did not tell anyone else about it.

Four out of five children aged 11-17 (82.7%) who experienced contact sexual abuse from a peer did not tell anyone else about it.

From: Radford, Lorraine, Corral, Susana, Bradley, Christine, Fisher, Helen, Bassett, Claire, Howat, Nick and Collishaw, Stephan (2011) Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. London: NSPCC.


UK - Source

 

[Jerome Marot]

Digging up an old thread for new facts. I cited this image from Eva Ionesco taken by Jacques Bourboulon under the supervision of the child's mother Irina Ionesco. It seemed appropriate in the discussed context.

The mother was condemned today by a French court, about 40 years after the pictures were first published. From yahoo news:

A Paris court has ordered French-Romanian photographer Irina Ionesco to pay 10,000 euros in damages to her daughter for taking explicit pictures of her in the 1970s, when she was between four and 12.

The court also ordered Ionesco to hand over negatives of the pictures to her daughter, Eva, a French actress who said she had suffered a "stolen childhood" because of the photographs.

But it rejected her demand for 200,000 euros in damages and for her mother to be barred from profiting from the photographs.

Ionesco was well-known in the 1970s for her erotic photographs, especially the controversial ones of her daughter, which appeared in a number of publications, including European editions of magazines Playboy and Penthouse.

During the trial, her lawyer argued the 1970s were a "more liberal and permissive" time and said Eva was pursuing a personal vendetta against her mother.

 

[fahim mohammed]

I cannot comment on the case and mother/daughter relationship. Although interesting questions can be explored.

Re: the photo itself. To me filth is filth. Age or time does not change, for me, some very basic principles of
morality and decency.

For others, it might be different.

 

[Asher Kelman]

The mother was condemned today by a French court, about
40 years after the pictures were first published. Yahoo news:​

A Paris court has ordered French-Romanian photographer Irina Ionesco to pay 10,000 euros in damages to her daughter for taking explicit pictures of her in the 1970s, when she was between four and 12.

The court also ordered Ionesco to hand over negatives of the pictures to her daughter, Eva, a French actress who said she had suffered a "stolen childhood" because of the photographs.

One of the great statements I've heard is the quote from Bart Van der Wolf,

"If you do what you did, you'll get what you got." ​

This is a matter of reaping the harvest of one's deeds. Actions have reactions and so there can be consequence to everything we do. "Ethics", here could have provided the needed distinction in conduct between what we can, (as a person with some power), do and what we should, (as a person of conscience and respect for others), do.

I have been vehemently against sensual adoration of children ever since I saw a documentary on the adult dressing up and appearance of sexualization of very young girls in the Irish Traveler communities, where the children might be dressed up like adults, paraded and eventually matched, (sometimes to fix a debt), in a public ceremony like a wedding, with all the guests from the community being the witnesses of the available talent and the agreed "betrothals".

Painted Child​

Then the JonBenet-Ramsey story came out with revelation of the world of pageants where the tiny kids are schooled in vamping like models on the runway and moving their hips as if they were American movie stars in some 50's classic. When a famous community producer put on a musical at the Geffen Playhouse in LA, some 10 years ago, where there were a bunch of little "Jon Benet Ramseys" gyrating on stage, I walked out and protested to the management. We shouldn't be entertained by little girls dressed up to be erotic women! that's wrong and exploitative and in addition is insulting to the audience.

Still, I have always held the opinion that parents have the right to photograph their children as they wish, but not for child porn. I have no issue with beauty. So I do not object to the work of Jock Sturges photographing adolescent girls and then families from infancy to their own offspring appearing. I just do not want precocious sexualization and objectification, - the dressing up of little children to arouse adults, to me, is both exploitative and wrong. If by one's culture, Jock's work is indeed arousing to us, then we should avoid his work completely. Even then, his nudes of adolescents aren't evil or immoral, just a documentation of beauty and grace to be respected. However, when the same images are indeed designed to arouse us sexually, then it's immoral, scandalous and insulting.

We don't know that was Eva's mother's intent; still, I'm highly suspicious and don't like what she did. These staged pictures seem so astonishingly and purposefully erotic and were actually being sold so are certainly exploitative, as the court decided. Now, years later, when she should be enjoying mother-daughter bonds, the natural consequences, (anger, resentment and betrayal), are there for all to see and learn from.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

Re: the photo itself. To me filth is filth.

I gave my own opinion on that photograph earlier in the thread. It is not because I cited these images that I endorse them.

People reading French will find out how destructive and wrong the pictures really were.

 

[fahim mohammed]

...
It is not because I cited these images that I endorse them.
....

Jerome, I never said you did.

Asher.

" ......Even then, his nudes of adolescents aren't evil or immoral, just a documentation of beauty and grace to be respected. However, when the same images are indeed designed to arouse us sexually, then it's immoral, scandalous and insulting...... "

Please tell me when nude images ( of adolescents or otherwise ) are ' evil or immoral ' and when they are not. And I would like to know when ' ..images are indeed designed to arouse us sexually..' and they become immoral.

Interesting to know when images on one hand are ' a documentation of beauty and grace ', while the ' same images are indeed designed to arouse us sexually..'.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jerome, I never said you did.

Asher.

" ......Even then, his nudes of adolescents aren't evil or immoral, just a documentation of beauty and grace to be respected. However, when the same images are indeed designed to arouse us sexually, then it's immoral, scandalous and insulting...... "

Please tell me when nude images ( of adolescents or otherwise ) are ' evil or immoral ' and when they are not. And I would like to know when ' ..images are indeed designed to arouse us sexually..' and they become immoral.

Interesting to know when images on one hand are ' a documentation of beauty and grace ', while the ' same images are indeed designed to arouse us sexually..'.

Fahim,

Children dressed up and posed erotically are the ones that cannot be readily justified in any culture. I cannot imagine there are positive aspects of this kind of behavior on the part of artists who choose to do this. I've given examples and they speak for themselves. The only thing you might do is agree with me that it's not justifiable to use children this way.

The second aspect of photographing children and adolescents is more culturally nuanced. In some societies these images of young people would be inappropriate according to their own values. However, others are entirely comfortable with viewing nudes be it adult or children without having any hint of sexual arousal. In that societal situation, the pictures are experienced as beauty and that it. We could be looking at a pear in soft light or a part of a body. They are shapes and forms with aesthetic value but not sexually charged. If, however, such pictures, by virtue of one's upbringing, give one discomfort, avoid them. We are always going to be on guard to make sure that children are not exploited. Pictures by adults will be questioned and parents and photographers will be held to account. The community will judge them. For those who cannot tolerate being judged, they should avoid taking such pictures in the first place.

Obviously, there are pictures of children which all of us would agree are wrong and damaging. But are there also pictures of nude adolescents which are acceptable to you as art and which you, as a curator in a museum, might be proud to secure for the public to be able to view for generations that follow us? These are questions that each person would handle somewhat differently based on their openness and comfort levels with nudity.

Michelangelo: David​

In a strict orthodox Rabbinic society, for example, such images would for sure be considered vain, inappropriate, a waste of time and shameful. But so would the sculptures of Michelangelo!

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

Fahim,

.....
In a strict orthodox Rabbinic society, for example, such images would for sure be considered vain, inappropriate, a waste of time and shameful. But so would the sculptures of Michelangelo!

Asher

And they would be correct. And I would totally agree with them. And there is nothing ' strict ' about it. It is what it is.

Let's just agree to disagree.

p.s. but then again, I have not had a ' renaissance ', so I am just not properly evolved.

 

[Asher Kelman]

And they would be correct. And I would totally agree with them. And there is nothing ' strict ' about it. It is what it is.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Fahim,

And such opinions and reactions are as valid as the positions of those of us who walk comfortably past such displays. I understand very well the values that buttress more conservative societies. One can argue strongly for the inherent benefits of modesty. I know that in many Jewish orthodox religious circles, viewing any art would be considered a waste of time, giving attention to sculptures would be bordering on idolatry, while looking at nudes would simply be unbecoming of anyone with any diginity!

Paradoxically, freedom to ponder, think, muse and dress as one wishes has value for individualism, but can also be detrimental. Freedom does not mean one is free to be exploitative or impulsive. Still, I believe, one can be a good and responsible person in both societies! However, some prayer and study times times might get squeezed out!

One could argue that with images of nudity, there might be temptations that cannot be controlled, but I'd argue that it all depends on one's experience and upbringing.

I pass riches every day and am never tempted to steal. So it really is a matter of how one is taught to behave.

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

Fahim,

....

I pass riches every day and am never tempted to steal. So it really is a matter of how one is taught to behave.

Asher

But that is not what is under discussion!!

based on your above statement, I would ask you ' is it right to steal; or not. '? Not whether you do or do not steal.

As I said, let's agree to disagree.

 

[Asher Kelman]

But that is not what is under discussion!!

based on your above statement, I would ask you ' is it right to steal; or not. '? Not whether you do or do not steal.

As I said, let's agree to disagree.

Only to explain my example, (not to persuade anyone of my stance), just as one is not "driven to steal" by virtue of merely observing riches one does not own, so in the same way, observing the human body, does not drive one to covet, lust or other similar unseemly behaviors...and yes, as to the morality of painting or photographing the body, we agree to hold different views. To me, the picture in post #64 is abusive to the child and to our society. OTOH, the picture in post # 69 is not. If I get it correctly, what we're differing on is that you find both of them in the same class of disrepute and the differences I rely on are not really sufficient to classify them separately.

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

.... If I get it correctly, what we're differing on is that you find both of them in the same class of disrepute and the differences I rely on are not really sufficient to classify them separately.

Asher

Yes.

The photo, to me, is reprehensible.
The statue too. I remember once you mentioned a part of your honorable father's thinking with regards
To statues. I stated then that I shared his views. And I continue to hold similar views. Time and age does not determine the basic principles of my morality.

Regards.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Yes.

The photo, to me, is reprehensible.
The statue too. I remember once you mentioned a part of your honorable father's thinking with regards
To statues. I stated then that I shared his views. And I continue to hold similar views. Time and age does not determine the basic principles of my morality.

Regards.

Thanks so much, Fahim, for allowing for such major differences. That's really something admirable. Throughout your travels you have shown only respect for the dignity of other people, even when they treasured beliefs in statues, idols and worship that to us are at the very least foreign and beyond rational process. That you find the good in others is a remarkable example, simple, but noble.

Asher