Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

Sorry, these girls are well past budding too.

Sorry again, had opnly found one photo of a girl that was defo past budding stage. The others look like they may be budding,. But again, this is a period of transformation for the human body, it is an extremely piowerful moment in our development that is usually smothered in embarressments and moodiness.

There has to be a way of celebrating this moment too. I'd have loved to do this. To have the moment captured.

So what if some bloke wants to w**k over them, he could choose to do so over a copy of mother and baby magazine - should we put that on the top shelf becasue of that?

I cannot understand how parents gave consent for their children to be pictured in this manner. These are children, not yet mature enough to decide what is appropriate and not.
I didn't feel comfortable at all looking at them. I am livid that anyone would think this is art.

I can just imagine this conversation with DH: "Oh, what shall we do this weekend darling? Shall we go to the art gallery? Apparently there is a wonderful exhibition of semi naked children.

We need to let children be children.

Before I start I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I step on someones toes here.

I came into this thread with an open mind that nudity can be beautiful and innocent if depicted in the right manner. That changed as soon as I saw the pictures. There is something very wrong with some of those shots they seem to be taken in a manner which sort of sexualises the children IYKWIM. There are a few that look as though there is someone off shot either behind or under which I found very disturbing. Diod anyone else see this or do I have a warped imagination? Either way they should get these pictures down and burn them and I think someone seriously needs to consider what this photographers motives really are because I have my doubts and Im sure some of you do too.

i didn't really see this, or look at it that way, yet looking again, i did.

The adult brain can probably easily sexualise them, and the exhibition is intended for adults isn't it.

Teenages are sexual beings. Are they not supposed to explore that in the hystreia that surrounds adult sexual pathology?

All healthy adults looking at these will be thinkinmg about themselves at that age or their own kids, what adoleseance means. There is so much wank fodder around, please get this in perspewctive.

I think that children need the most protection between the age of beginning their sexual development and consensual age.

Oh, not the passive object please. Just becasue your brain signals one thing and goes off on one with out exploring why, doesn't mean everyone elses is. There is a lot to explore actaully.

And if someone wants to wank over children, they need only get a clothes catalogue to do so.

No crime is being comitted here. Only imagined crimes in the heads of some people, in the fantasies of others...thought crimes even. Shades of Orwell here.

Thay have that ptotection C. That's moot.

I am a conflicted over what I think about this.

I am concerned about situations where we over-think everything that is said and done in case someone misuses it for their own perverted pleasure. Where would we draw the line? I think it is important that we stress to our children that their bodies are natural and normal.

The photographs made me think "meh", tbh. The quality of the photography is pretty average, and I wasn't disturbed by the content.

I wouldn't pay to see this exhibition, but would happily walk round it if it were at a large art gallery.

However, I wouldn't let my children take part in this exhibition.

See, conflicted.

These kids will be professioal models since v young. It's between them and their parents and the photographer. There is nothing illegal happening in the photos, just in peoples heads which I find more alarming tbh

I find your view naive though mt

Its based on the info availablein this thread. Not extrapolating wildly. It isn't to totality of what i think on the subject, only this small aspedct of it. That's fairly measured and the opposite of naive.

remember?

Well I think the discription is more titilating than the photo in question - and maybe the point is that posr has saturated so many adult imaginations that every depiction of nudity or exloration of sexuality has pornographic over/undertones. That is a different issue entitrely to banning or "burning" artworls that offend certain individuals for nebulous reasons.

In some couuntries women are whipped for going out alone and inflaming the desires of men. Are the women at fault?

typo - porn has saturated so many adult imaginatyions

my brothers ex-wife recently threw out her boyfriend of 5yrs for taking photo's of her 14yr old daughter in the bath (my niece consented at the time as he made it sound like a good idea!). The police are prosecuting him for lurid behaviour towards a minor.

In my opinion the artist and the parents who allowed their children to be expoited in this way should be charged too!

At 12 these children are not old enough to consent to these public photos and the potential future embarrassment they may cause them. There are in noway in the best interests of the children - what do they get out of it? They are purely for adult (hopefully non sexual) entertainment.

hope not to offend anyone, just my (biased) opinion.

What do you mean purley for adult "entertainment"? What is that supposed to mean. What do you want boys and grils of the same age to look at..? A void, that's what, it seems

spot on Lindax

Monkeytrousers...I am with you...

oh. I love a good old Mn debate

Monkeytrousers I agree with everything you've said and I am so glad you came to this thread. You said what I was trying to say but better and bolder.

Lindax, that's awful. What an awful situation.

Monkeytrousers, do you see no link at all between what is 'normalised' in magazine culture (so to speak) and real life???

That 14 yr old was persuaded that it was normal, or a good idea to let her step father take a photo of her naked in the bath. Do you truly see absolutely NO connection between what goes on in real life and what we choose to 'celebrate' up on the big screen (or in an exhibition).

I said I wouldn't come back to this thread. It upsets me to see people put a personal and academic notion of what should or should not be celebrated before even one of the many measures that should be taken to protect children.

and "let's be clear" about something else, it's not just pre-adolescents who need protection.

Why the obsessive focus on precisely what stage of development. They are under 16. They should be protected.

And it is ludicrously disingenuous to suggest that if we look at these photos and see a deliberate sexualisation that we are at fault for being dirty and not seeing the art.

Perhaps your comment about loving a good debate is telling. This is just an enjoyable intellectual debate to some. Something different to talk about, makes a change from planning issues and school fees.
But it means something more to me.