red-states? Explain please. Are you really looking down your nose at me because I live in a state where we wear clothes? Did I mis-understand??
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Imagine, a guy arrested for taking pictures at girl's soccer match! Is he guilty?
- Thread starter Asher Kelman
- Start date
red-states? Explain please. Are you really looking down your nose at me because I live in a state where we wear clothes? Did I mis-understand??
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Red and blue states in the USA!
Jim,
I've always just looked at your pictures, lenses, your handsome mug or your venerable cameras, I never noticed whether you actually wore clothes or not!
Here are some thick paint brush generalizations that still hold some insight into the way we think here.
Red states more likely to think the ACLU are liberal soft foolish flag bearers for the left and uphold the view that if it was good enough for John Wayne, it has to be right.
Blue States are more likely to allow for individual choices but might expect more of government when things don't work out.
Red states tend to believe that getting inexpensive pharmaceuticals from Canada will erode the superiority of American healthcare, Blue states are more likely to want the government to pay from them anyway.
Red and Blue states almost equally question evolution and find it hard to believe that humans developed from lower animals, pretty much in line with Turkey and Bulgaria.
Blue states are more likely to believe that Arsenic in drinking water is bad for kids and for diversity of species in the rivers, whereas more educated folk in Red states will challenge you with either Bill Clinton's, parsing of "is", his famous infidelity with Monica Lewinsky or ask, "Why on earth do we need so many species anyway?"
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Wow, Jim,
A bigot? Even if you translated roughly back from Greek though Arameic, no way you can find bigotry. What part of what you read struck you in that way? I'm utterly flummoxed!
Asher
Blue state people are the solution. Red state people are the problem. Round up those trouble makers 'n git rid of 'em.
Blue state people are obviously superior.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
You missed it, both colors see what they want through filtered glasses. We're all still pretty backwards in complementary ways!
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jim,
Returning to the case in question, the amazing part of the Texas law is implying intent based on flimsy suppositions and therefore making legal actions, illegal! This creates a slippery slope for civil rights.
No one would argue with protecting children from immediate danger. Go ahead, whack the guy who has his camera pointed up the dress of an infant on the beach. Then take responsibility if it's actually the father photographing his baby girls first steps in the sand!
"The law raises many questions, a local attorney said.
“How do you infer that just because a person has a picture of an adolescent girl from the head down that it’s illegal?” civil rights attorney Anthony Griffin said. “I don’t know, and the attempt to regulate it is incredible.” [There's] No Admission Of Guilt. The law could have ramifications for artists learning to draw or for photographers taking pictures of strangers from a distance for an art class, Griffin said. “I think it’s a danger when you try to regulate that,” Griffin said. “That we’re going to try to regulate art, thoughts and literature. Shakespeare would be in trouble. Shakespeare would be going to jail in our times.” Source
Some implications to think about!
Asher
Returning to the case in question, the amazing part of the Texas law is implying intent based on flimsy suppositions and therefore making legal actions, illegal! This creates a slippery slope for civil rights.
No one would argue with protecting children from immediate danger. Go ahead, whack the guy who has his camera pointed up the dress of an infant on the beach. Then take responsibility if it's actually the father photographing his baby girls first steps in the sand!
"The law raises many questions, a local attorney said.
“How do you infer that just because a person has a picture of an adolescent girl from the head down that it’s illegal?” civil rights attorney Anthony Griffin said. “I don’t know, and the attempt to regulate it is incredible.” [There's] No Admission Of Guilt. The law could have ramifications for artists learning to draw or for photographers taking pictures of strangers from a distance for an art class, Griffin said. “I think it’s a danger when you try to regulate that,” Griffin said. “That we’re going to try to regulate art, thoughts and literature. Shakespeare would be in trouble. Shakespeare would be going to jail in our times.” Source
Some implications to think about!
Asher
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
The problem with "western culture" is that there is no such thing, but it was a necessary generalization. Indeed attitudes vary. For example, in France, the attitude will vary considerably from region to region and between social classes. It is a vast subject and this forum is not really the place to discuss it, but: no, I don't think it is linked to the English language.
I'll say it again: it is not only children. Try to go to the next beach where men and women are clad in swimsuits with a very visible camera, a long lens and tripod maybe, and see for yourself what will happen. Now, let your wife do the same on the next day and see what the attitudes are.
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
The irony of this post will not be lost on regular members of OPF.
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
Not only Shakespeare. Allow me to demonstrate:
Sally Mann
David Hamilton
Jacques Bourboulon
Larry Clark
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jerome,
These pictures are examples of photography of minors that are recognized as great art. Yet, these very same images if discovered in a hapless photographer's camera, likely would be proof enough of a crime, at least in Texas! Doubtless, they'd claim, only a pervert would make such pictures and the purpose was sexual arousal.
Sally Mann
David Hamilton
These I'm comfortable with. However what of the last two?
Jacques Bourboulon
Larry Clark
Is this now, not only art, but also exploitative or is it just that all photography is exploitative and this is just a matter of degree? In these last two photographs, isn't the main thrust of the imagery sexual or could one also argue that the first two are sexual too, but they're of "sexual innocence", whereas as these are of "sexual awareness" and so more prone to disapproval?
Asher
These pictures are examples of photography of minors that are recognized as great art. Yet, these very same images if discovered in a hapless photographer's camera, likely would be proof enough of a crime, at least in Texas! Doubtless, they'd claim, only a pervert would make such pictures and the purpose was sexual arousal.
Sally Mann
David Hamilton
These I'm comfortable with. However what of the last two?
Jacques Bourboulon
Larry Clark
Is this now, not only art, but also exploitative or is it just that all photography is exploitative and this is just a matter of degree? In these last two photographs, isn't the main thrust of the imagery sexual or could one also argue that the first two are sexual too, but they're of "sexual innocence", whereas as these are of "sexual awareness" and so more prone to disapproval?
Asher
Last edited:
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
You are changing the subject.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Just to update us on the case that sparked this thread, the once pharmacist at the local hospital pleaded "guilty" at his trial. This was posted Wednesday, September 22, 2010 in Yourhoustongnews.com.
"A 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.
“If he does, he violates his probation,’’ said assistant Harris County District Attorney John Wakefield. “The key is for families to keep an eye out for this guy.’’
Surprisingly, this man gave police permission to view his camera files and search his car! That, to me, at least, tends to indicate a man without intent to exploit the kids, or else, likely as not, he'd have simply refused! The alleged pervert was no ignorant bum, but an educated fellow, previously a pharmacist as the local hospital. Had he not given consent, then how could the trial have gone forward? One must ask whether the "Guilty" plea was actually the result of a "plea bargain", wherein the Texas prosecutors, with a flimsy case, get him to submit a "guilty" plea in return for zero risk of going to jail for 10 years or whatever the felony allows for. The police finding of "Pornographic material", (which is otherwise unexplained, and not characterized as pedophiliac), could have been the one thin straw only just managing to weigh the fragile scales of justice, against the man, supporting the State of Texas' asserted, but vague concept of "intent to have sexual arousal" from the pictures of clothed girls playing sport in a public place.
Now this perhaps was a better case for a careful police investigation, not knee-jerk reaction of sweeping him up, like garbage, as if some child molestation was actually caught in the act with witnesses.
If the police were so suspicious, why not invest the energy to see if he's molests kids? Get the evidence before warning him so clearly. After all, isn't it much more important to catch really dangerous predators? By nabbing him with a pefunctary infraction, (although in Texas law, a serious felony), they might very well have a prevented themselves from actually discovering horrendous child predation. Checking on a suspicious person could have been done, within the law, without overzealous police action and that would indeed protect the public! Of course, I do not mean to imply that this man was indeed guilty as a child molester, but any chance of determining that, if it was true, has been greatly diminished. The public interest is this better served by being much more selective in where energy of police investigation is directed. Was he a boy scout leader or perhaps a kids' judo instructor? Did he serve as an assistant to a teacher on outings or priest and have access to children in private? Did he ply kids with gifts and groom them for molestation? If there was no such meat to such a chase, then refocus on suspects that actually do leave a trail of evidence! That way we don't trick ourselves into believing we've gotten a real pervert of the street!
But this case is much more important than merely a waste of police resources or even of bullying the evidently "creepy" man to confess to a crime. It's far more serious than that!
The conviction of this man is in fact a pyrhic victory. The staggering loss of rights to photograph in a public place is brought about with consequent diminished ability to document crimes against those who are unprotected. In the jurisdiction of this Texas law, folk will feel naturally restrained from photographing what's around them, for fear of accidentally getting an image that police might interpret as "potentially sexually arousing to some person". What benefit is it for society to have citizens much more hesitant at picture snapping what they wish, however silly or inane?
We fare far better, (as the Rodney King pictures proved), by citizens have unrestricted rights to document everything around them.
Asher
"A 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.
“If he does, he violates his probation,’’ said assistant Harris County District Attorney John Wakefield. “The key is for families to keep an eye out for this guy.’’
Surprisingly, this man gave police permission to view his camera files and search his car! That, to me, at least, tends to indicate a man without intent to exploit the kids, or else, likely as not, he'd have simply refused! The alleged pervert was no ignorant bum, but an educated fellow, previously a pharmacist as the local hospital. Had he not given consent, then how could the trial have gone forward? One must ask whether the "Guilty" plea was actually the result of a "plea bargain", wherein the Texas prosecutors, with a flimsy case, get him to submit a "guilty" plea in return for zero risk of going to jail for 10 years or whatever the felony allows for. The police finding of "Pornographic material", (which is otherwise unexplained, and not characterized as pedophiliac), could have been the one thin straw only just managing to weigh the fragile scales of justice, against the man, supporting the State of Texas' asserted, but vague concept of "intent to have sexual arousal" from the pictures of clothed girls playing sport in a public place.
Now this perhaps was a better case for a careful police investigation, not knee-jerk reaction of sweeping him up, like garbage, as if some child molestation was actually caught in the act with witnesses.
If the police were so suspicious, why not invest the energy to see if he's molests kids? Get the evidence before warning him so clearly. After all, isn't it much more important to catch really dangerous predators? By nabbing him with a pefunctary infraction, (although in Texas law, a serious felony), they might very well have a prevented themselves from actually discovering horrendous child predation. Checking on a suspicious person could have been done, within the law, without overzealous police action and that would indeed protect the public! Of course, I do not mean to imply that this man was indeed guilty as a child molester, but any chance of determining that, if it was true, has been greatly diminished. The public interest is this better served by being much more selective in where energy of police investigation is directed. Was he a boy scout leader or perhaps a kids' judo instructor? Did he serve as an assistant to a teacher on outings or priest and have access to children in private? Did he ply kids with gifts and groom them for molestation? If there was no such meat to such a chase, then refocus on suspects that actually do leave a trail of evidence! That way we don't trick ourselves into believing we've gotten a real pervert of the street!
But this case is much more important than merely a waste of police resources or even of bullying the evidently "creepy" man to confess to a crime. It's far more serious than that!
The conviction of this man is in fact a pyrhic victory. The staggering loss of rights to photograph in a public place is brought about with consequent diminished ability to document crimes against those who are unprotected. In the jurisdiction of this Texas law, folk will feel naturally restrained from photographing what's around them, for fear of accidentally getting an image that police might interpret as "potentially sexually arousing to some person". What benefit is it for society to have citizens much more hesitant at picture snapping what they wish, however silly or inane?
We fare far better, (as the Rodney King pictures proved), by citizens have unrestricted rights to document everything around them.
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The pictures you aptly chose to illustrate what art could be lost also raise questions of their own. Not to recognize that some are sexually innocent and others purposely sexually aware, would be to miss out on the complexity of attempts to legislate against such imagery. That's why I commented!
Asher
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Where is the ' NSFW ' label?
Please do us the courtesy by warning those who might be reluctant to view such art work, if they are forewarned. I do not want photographs made my me, and specially photographs of my family, to be associated with such a forum.
Pure sexual content masquerading as ' art '. Worse, it is of children!! Just my opinion.
I also respect other people's right to make and view such ' art ' and enjoy it. As long as the culture and laws in their jurisdiction/s allows for such.
And also importantly, of course, if the personal morality of the photogs and viewers accommodates making and viewing such artistic works.
Wonder how many viewers would like their own children be the ' models ' for similar artistic work?
Please do us the courtesy by warning those who might be reluctant to view such art work, if they are forewarned. I do not want photographs made my me, and specially photographs of my family, to be associated with such a forum.
Pure sexual content masquerading as ' art '. Worse, it is of children!! Just my opinion.
I also respect other people's right to make and view such ' art ' and enjoy it. As long as the culture and laws in their jurisdiction/s allows for such.
And also importantly, of course, if the personal morality of the photogs and viewers accommodates making and viewing such artistic works.
Wonder how many viewers would like their own children be the ' models ' for similar artistic work?
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Fahim,
Thanks for the prod. I was about to do that tomorrow anyway. So, we now have NSFW designation. We do need to be on the look out and alert to have to separate family-orientated discussion from allowed content which might be totally inappropriate and even offensive to most people here. By having this designation, folk will be steered away from images they would not want to experience.
"Freedom of speech", (as it pertains to the USA), allows for us, (and even requires us), to protect a racist fascist march by neo-nazis, (even one that would stoke hatred to Jews and Muslims). Similarly, it protects our right to take pictures of anything in the public domain, within reach of our lens. This extends to pictures of anyone, dressed or not. Such "Art" is also protected as a mode of expression, part of this package of "protected speech". So from any number of angles there's room for casual good as well as serious exploitation: creativity, for good or its opposite. However, it's the core belief of the American society that freedom of expression, (even from an unpopular minority and outragious or even noxious speech or art), must be allowed or else all speech is threatened with censorship as in a dictatorship. In the U.K. such hate speech is not only not protected, but is a serious offense that can land racists in jail!
In that vein, in the USA, we go out of our way to allow and protect outrageous speech. Here too in OPF, we allow such freedom to be out of synch, but we do provide limits: attacks cannot be against a person personal, ethnic or religious group or cause humiliation. There's our limit and it's my job to enforce, with your help.
So let's get back to pictures of kids, we should not assume all such works are doing some magical public good! That would be naive at the least. I myself question the value of the last 2 photographs offered by Jerome. I do have some discomfort as they seem exploitative. As brilliant and creative as such art might be, let's consider that, on occasions, some wound in our collective psyche might also the price for this freedom. Artists have a responsibility to show respect as well as creativity. We'll struggle with this as long as there's art and protected speech!
Asher
Thanks for the prod. I was about to do that tomorrow anyway. So, we now have NSFW designation. We do need to be on the look out and alert to have to separate family-orientated discussion from allowed content which might be totally inappropriate and even offensive to most people here. By having this designation, folk will be steered away from images they would not want to experience.
"Freedom of speech", (as it pertains to the USA), allows for us, (and even requires us), to protect a racist fascist march by neo-nazis, (even one that would stoke hatred to Jews and Muslims). Similarly, it protects our right to take pictures of anything in the public domain, within reach of our lens. This extends to pictures of anyone, dressed or not. Such "Art" is also protected as a mode of expression, part of this package of "protected speech". So from any number of angles there's room for casual good as well as serious exploitation: creativity, for good or its opposite. However, it's the core belief of the American society that freedom of expression, (even from an unpopular minority and outragious or even noxious speech or art), must be allowed or else all speech is threatened with censorship as in a dictatorship. In the U.K. such hate speech is not only not protected, but is a serious offense that can land racists in jail!
In that vein, in the USA, we go out of our way to allow and protect outrageous speech. Here too in OPF, we allow such freedom to be out of synch, but we do provide limits: attacks cannot be against a person personal, ethnic or religious group or cause humiliation. There's our limit and it's my job to enforce, with your help.
So let's get back to pictures of kids, we should not assume all such works are doing some magical public good! That would be naive at the least. I myself question the value of the last 2 photographs offered by Jerome. I do have some discomfort as they seem exploitative. As brilliant and creative as such art might be, let's consider that, on occasions, some wound in our collective psyche might also the price for this freedom. Artists have a responsibility to show respect as well as creativity. We'll struggle with this as long as there's art and protected speech!
Asher
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
So, we now have NSFW designation. Who's have thunk?
You might very well consider it something to ' smile ' about..I don't.
I asked a question..' would any active members of this forum allow their children to be the models for
such ' art' work? ' and would they want it on the WWW?
I would definitely not. Would you?
Give me a simple answer. All those here that support ' art '. Starting with you.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Fahim,
No reference to your warning at all! Who'd have "thunk" that this thread with just text, would come to actually contain pictures of naked teens? Not I for one. Otherwise the NSFW designation would have been there from the outset! I'm just surprised that the thread progressed so explicitly into the frank discussion of what's appropriate or not with examples from established photographic art our culture accepts as worthy.
That's not how I was raised and I have no daughters. I can't imagine I'd be at all comfortable. However, lots of people are more modern and totally at ease, and so for them it could be easier. Today, with the WWW and creeps trolling for nefarious purposes, I'd not want such art to allow easier location of targets for pedophiles. If there was no name to the work, then perhaps the under age models would be safe. Still, this is not something my own family would participate in and nothing we'd want to promote.
For sure, if someone in OPF posted even an innocent looking picture of a naked teen they'd taken I'd be very, very uncomfortable and concerned for the child's safety.
Asher
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
"For sure, if someone in OPF posted even an innocent looking picture of a naked teen they'd taken I'd be very, very uncomfortable and concerned for the child's safety."
Then how come, these images were allowed? Nobody felt uncomfortable? Because they are someone else's kids?
I shall wait for the others that are active on this forum to respond to my simple question. Most of them do know so much about art.
Let's make the question even simpler, shall we.
How many of those that post on this forum would like their spouses images in the nude and sexually suggestive positions be posted for all the world to see. In full view. Please provide links, so that others too might view and enjoy this art work.
And no, I do not believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, either.
Hypocrisy and self gratifying hypocrites ( in this particular instance ) cloaking themselves under the veneer of freedom/s of expression in art.
Then how come, these images were allowed? Nobody felt uncomfortable? Because they are someone else's kids?
I shall wait for the others that are active on this forum to respond to my simple question. Most of them do know so much about art.
Let's make the question even simpler, shall we.
How many of those that post on this forum would like their spouses images in the nude and sexually suggestive positions be posted for all the world to see. In full view. Please provide links, so that others too might view and enjoy this art work.
And no, I do not believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, either.
Hypocrisy and self gratifying hypocrites ( in this particular instance ) cloaking themselves under the veneer of freedom/s of expression in art.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Fahim,
You have shon a light on an important question. If a person posts a picture of their own Tom or Janet aged 14 in the shower, we'd delete it, as the identification of that OPF member could, in many cases allow WWW lurking perverts to discover the location of the person in the photo. That we cannot tolerate, even if the picture is "artistic", prize-winning and in good taste by some "perfect" imagined standard. I've had opfrs remove pictures that I thought sexually provocative and put their own children at risk. Unknown models, however, are not traceable, and not at such direct risk, but are as likely to be removed if moderators felt they reached the level of child porn.
This is matter we have to consider further as a group and mechanisms by which we choose what to show are by no means settled! We may just have to work together on a case by case basis and point out if and where we are making any serious mistakes. For now, out intent is to allow for art but protect kids and I hope our approach is workable.
Asher
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
I considered to request that label before I posted these pictures, but then also considered that the title of this section is: "Provocative Thoughts and Images: Avoid if you take offense to cultural/moral/political issues!". I understand the whole section to be "NSFW".
Maybe I should also point out that the "NSFW" label would need to be rethought. What is "safe" here is "unsafe" there because cultural sensitivities vary. What you seem to request is that we flag "nudity".
First, I would like to point out that I am not necessarily supporting "art" or even freedom of expression at all costs, just stating that there is a problem. I don't know what the solution is.
But you ask a fair question, which I feel obligated to answer. However a complete answer needs to put the photographs in the context in which they were taken. So:
-Sally Mann took pictures of her own family and this is what we have here. Your question thus becomes "would I take such pictures of my children and publish them?". The answer is no, but the context is different. For Sally Mann the pictures are part of a political statement and I am not in the same position. If the question was "would I let another photographer take and publish similar pictures of my children?", the answer is maybe yes for me and probably not for my wife.
-David Hamilton: the answer is no, because I find this work dishonest. In my eyes, David Hamilton was always about circumventing the law for the sexual gratification of perverts. Here against context is necessary, in particular the tight restrictions on pornography in England at the time.
-Jacques Bourboulon: no. I find the subject of this work extremely offensive and I also have reservations about the conditions under which it was made, since the relation between the photographer and the mother of the pictured child was rather dubious.
-Larry Clark: the context is necessary here, since this is one of the mildest images of a commune of young drug addicts, taken by a member. Politically, it was an extremely important work in raising awareness to a real social problem and has been shown in many museum exhibitions, often creating a scandal. The scandals were, however, less for the depiction of addiction and violence than for the depiction of sexual acts, which can be a lot more graphic than in the picture I chose. My feelings are exactly opposite. The answer to your question is obviously no, I would not let my children become drug addicts financing their needs by prostitution. This is what is implied by your question of "becoming models for such work" in that case, but I suppose you had not realized that.
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Jerome, first thank you your explanation. I appreciate your candor.
This section "Provocative Thoughts and Images: Avoid if you take offense to cultural/moral/political issues!", I have taken to mean ' thoughts, beliefs etc ' that might be controversial, but conducted civilly to as to air our differences.
I never did think that posting ' pornographic ' images/material would be included in this category.
Obviously, I have misunderstood and am a misfit.
Take care.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
No misfit at all. We meed to update the heading! I am correcting the notice for the section to cover nude images. However, so far, as of 4:50 am, my edits have not appeared. More engineering needed tomorrow!
Asher
Asher
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
One of us had misunderstood. Who it was is not relevant. What is relevant is to make sure it does not happen another time.
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Asher. I do not know if this is meant in jest or sarcasm. The light has been shining for a very long time.
But weather does vary across geographical regions.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jerome,
Your frank evaluations, (in post #51), of the 4 pictures you gave as examples, (in post #40 above), are very educational and helpful in this discussion of art, nakedness, innocent sexuality and exploitation of children.
Fahim,
No jest at all. I am truly appreciative for guidance. Tough steering this ship!
Thanks to you and Jerome! New ideas and therefore we need to update.
Asher
Your frank evaluations, (in post #51), of the 4 pictures you gave as examples, (in post #40 above), are very educational and helpful in this discussion of art, nakedness, innocent sexuality and exploitation of children.
Fahim,
No jest at all. I am truly appreciative for guidance. Tough steering this ship!
Thanks to you and Jerome! New ideas and therefore we need to update.
Asher
Mark Hampton
New member
After Jerome posted the image context in answer to Fahims question - it all seems rather tame. 2 good works and two shitty yins. Context would have helped others understand the work as it should have been viewed.
fruit.child.veg - Deka
remember people porn really needs arousal - that's the goal.
fruit.child.veg - Deka
remember people porn really needs arousal - that's the goal.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mark,
I take your insertion of a message seriously. It's is an abrupt confrontation. Is it merely a finger to a serious discussion or more like a scream of protest from the audience in a play or perhaps a child's quiet questioning voice in the Emperor's parade of his new fine suit?
On the face of it, your post appears as an impulsive, (and incompletely framed), utter dismissal of any and all attempts or pretenses at respect for civic boundaries of pictures of sexual matters. That way, we'd allow for anything to be shown in general social settings? Or is there some limit, nuance and more logic behind your post?
fruit.child.veg - Deka
You mean to imply what? I'd like to know the chain of argument implied in your grocery of pictures, as it reflects on the discussion of "Photography of children and risk implied sexual gratification or exploitation down the road or humiliation of families exposed to such material when its outside of their cultural norms."
I'm not, just yet, attacking any view you might hold. Diversity is fine! Rather I'm struggling to understand the meaning and import of what you have posted.
Thanks,
Asher
Last edited:
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
Indeed arousal is the purpose of porn. So, if I get your message correctly, you expected me to post images illustrating child porn, images of children designed so as to provoke sexual arousal in the viewer? I have a few problems with that proposal:
- According to the law of the country where I live, detention of any such images would send me to prison. Posting links in a public forum as well.
- I seem to recall that Asher lives in California. To the best of my knowledge of the legal system of that state, he would be in a heap of trouble as well, and we don't really want that from our host.
- I don't think it is likely to help us come to an issue on the discussion at hand.
So: yes, it will be "rather tame". Direct confrontation is not exactly my way of doing things.
Mark Hampton
New member
Mark,
I take you insertion of a message seriously. It's is an abrupt confrontation. Is it merely a finger to a serious discussion or more like a scream of protest from the audience in a play or perhaps a child's quiet questioning voice in the Emperor's parade of his new fine suit?
On the face of it, your post appears as an impulsive, (and incompletely framed), utter dismissal of any and all attempts or pretenses at respect for civic boundaries of pictures of sexual matters. That way, we'd allow for anything to be shown in general social settings? Or is there some limit, nuance and more logic behind your post?
fruit.child.veg - Deka
You mean to imply what? I'd like to know the chain of argument implied in your grocery of pictures, as it reflects on the discussion of "Photography of children and risk implied sexual gratification or exploitation down the road or humiliation of families exposed to such material when its outside of their cultural norms."
I'm not, just yet, attacking any view you might hold. Diversity is fine! Rather I'm struggling to understand the meaning and import of what you have posted.
Thanks,
Asher
Asher,
it was a post on a thread about photography / children / porn / the law / NSFW - one has to have an ironic view of the post.
two photographers on this thread treat children like a commodity for their own and others gratification and two who work with them and make solid work.
also I though the simple fact about porn had been missed.
remember people porn really needs arousal - that's the goal.
hope that clears up that !
cheers