The Charles Dodgson dilemma (no pics in thread)

[Free Speech]

Much of the porn industry likes the .xxx domain, but what they don't understand is that with this domain, it will be confirmed that controversial art IS porn.

Dodgson (considered a deviant later in life) grew up with a sketch pad in hand, drawing and painting everything he could.
He quickly switched to photography and took photographs of anything he considered to have some kind of beauty.

Serving under bishops in The Church, his work (which included naked and topless women) was condemned to be called perversion (remember this was a time when an adult's dress that went above the ankle or a child's skirt above the knee were scandalous).
Dodgson went on taking pictures, and was a famous photographer of family portraits, specializing in family nude portraits.
He would soon add naked children (girls only unless with parents) to his photograph collection.
If an older child, she might be in a flirtatious or mildly suggestive pose while nude.
If a younger child, she would just be standing in the nude.

I'm not condoning child pornography (as in having sex with or non consensual touching of the child), but I agree with Dodgson that nudity of any age is not porn, and it will go right in the .xxx domain.

Let me make this clear:
I agree with the nudity concept, and would enjoy the result, but I question his methods.

[Free Speech]

Was Lewis Carroll a paedophile? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087447/Was-Lewis-Carroll-paedophile-Discovery-cryptic-letter-raises-questions-authors-relationship-real-life-Alice.html)
Lewis Carroll – Paedophile? (http://victorian-fiction.suite101.com/article.cfm/lewis_carroll_paedophile)

[Sweetchuck]

Sick fucks like that should be lobotomized and left for dead in a poppy field in Afghanistan.

[Free Speech]

Sick fucks like that should be lobotomized and left for dead in a poppy field in Afghanistan.
Not so fast.
The first article said "obsessed", and the second said "infatuated".
Neither one used the terms "love" or "lust".
Even Dodgson knew sex (with a child) was out of the question (only with Alice's consent).

These are also old articles.
A paper was written suggesting he was not a paedophile, but hypersexual (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=415) (may include voyeurism).

By the way, the age of consent was 12 at the time (16 in northern states).

PS: Let's stick to the subject of art versus porn.

[Sweetchuck]

Sorry, but child pornography is not art.

[Free Speech]

Sorry, but child pornography is not art.
Can you elaborate on that statement?
Why is it not art just because of the age of the subject?

[avatar4321]

Exploiting people isn't art. It's criminal.

[Free Speech]

Exploiting people isn't art. It's criminal.
If both child and parent consent, then it's not exploitation.
That's art isn't it?

As for artistic nudity, Youtube has changed their guidelines after censoring Amy Greenfield's channel.
Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity? (http://techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1758358276.shtml)
UPDATE: Victory - YouTube Permits Amy Greenfield Art (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/02/youtube-should-permit-amy-greenfield-art)
Before
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hJ1q-14GDo
After
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGvqOaLA7wA
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGvqOaLA7wA)

[Sweetchuck]

Can you elaborate on that statement?
Why is it not art just because of the age of the subject?

If I have to explain it to you, you're clearly not mature enough to understand.

[Sweetchuck]

If both child and parent consent, then it's not exploitation.
That's art isn't it?

As for artistic nudity, Youtube has changed their guidelines after censoring Amy Greenfield's channel.
Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity? (http://techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1758358276.shtml)
UPDATE: Victory - YouTube Permits Amy Greenfield Art (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/02/youtube-should-permit-amy-greenfield-art)
Before
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hJ1q-14GDo
After
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGvqOaLA7wA
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGvqOaLA7wA)

Children aren't mentally capable of consenting, hence the definition of 'legal adult'.

If a parent consents to having their child pose for pornographic photos, that's a crime.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about this whole thing.

[Free Speech]

Exploiting people isn't art. It's criminal.
If you are talking about "sexting" it's now a felony, meaning either a small fine, house arrest, Juvenal Hall, probation, community service, or a combination.

Sexting implies parental consent was not given prior to the submission or transmission of nude or provocative child images.
Artistically with written parental consent and supervised by parent or guardian, I hope this will change (see Blue Lagoon Uncensored).

Miller Test Quote
"Anything that has scientific, artistic, political, or literary merit (or with informational value) is not pornographic."


If a parent consents to having their child pose for pornographic photos, that's a crime.
Who's talking about porn?
I said art.

In related news:
The Coppertone baby (pictured with dog pulling down her shorts) billboard was taken down considered to be smut and a bad influence on society.
It's a little too late for that don't you think?

[Sweetchuck]

Kiddie porn is not art no matter how you try to paint it.

[Free Speech]

Kiddie porn is not art no matter how you try to paint it.
Again, I never did say porn.
What's your definition of the word?

[Sweetchuck]

Again, I never did say porn.
What's your definition of the word?

Pics of naked kids.

The fact that anyone wants to suggest that pics of naked kids is art is laughable. It crosses the border opening new avenues for pedophiles and sick fucks.

Kids are not of a mental capacity to make such decisions, that's that the parents responsibility is - and if parents are cool with letting some unrelated person take and distribute pics of their kids naked, I highly question the mental and moral capacity of the parent.

[Free Speech]

Pics of naked kids.

The fact that anyone wants to suggest that pics of naked kids is art is laughable. It crosses the border opening new avenues for pedophiles and sick fucks.

Kids are not of a mental capacity to make such decisions, that's that the parents responsibility is - and if parents are cool with letting some unrelated person take and distribute pics of their kids naked, I highly question the mental and moral capacity of the parent.
I agree that there are some sick and twisted people in the world, but that doesn't make everybody so.
Children having sex is porn, but not naked.
The argument you give is that kids under 18 (16 is legal depending on the state) can't make their own decisions.
Is that really an argument?
I'm agreeing with you there, saying with written parental consent and supervised by parent or guardian.

This idea came about from the Brooke Shields movie "Pretty Baby".
Admittedly the mother didn't use her best judgment putting her 8 or 9 year old daughter in various nude and partially nude sex scenes in a "sexploitation" film, but what do you expect from a beer guzzling coke addict?

This was also a different time, even before AIDS came out.
Parents are more responsible for their kids now, which is why I laugh at your comment in the videogame violence thread.

[Sweetchuck]

I agree that there are some sick and twisted people in the world, but that doesn't make everybody so.
Children having sex is porn, but not naked.
The argument you give is that kids under 18 (16 is legal depending on the state) can't make their own decisions.
Is that really an argument?
I'm agreeing with you there, saying with written parental consent and supervised by parent or guardian.

This idea came about from the Brooke Shields movie "Pretty Baby".
Admittedly the mother didn't use her best judgment putting her 8 or 9 year old daughter in various nude and partially nude sex scenes in a "sexploitation" film, but what do you expect from a beer guzzling coke addict?

This was also a different time, even before AIDS came out.
Parents are more responsible for their kids now, which is why I laugh at your comment in the videogame violence thread.

It's one thing to have bare-ass baby pics in the family photo album and to take pics of your kids naked for general distribution.

I really don't understand why you are struggling with this concept.

[Free Speech]

It's one thing to have bare-ass baby pics in the family photo album and to take pics of your kids naked for general distribution.

I really don't understand why you are struggling with this concept.
The concept is parental consent (written).
Hypothetically for the sake of argument, exhibitionism and flashing, voyeurism and video voyeurism become legal as an artistic form of expression.

The conditions for children are:
Must have written parental consent
Must be accompanied by an adult in all times of nudity
Must be supervised by parent or guardian
Must be in safe family friendly environment

Do you think anyone really will consent.
This just gives adults the freedom to choose if they want to consent.

[avatar4321]

So should people be allowed to rape a child if the parent consents?

You do realize that parents don't have the right to give consent to abuse their children or criminally victimize their children right?

[Free Speech]

So should people be allowed to rape a child if the parent consents?

You do realize that parents don't have the right to give consent to abuse their children or criminally victimize their children right?
Rape and abuse of any form are not fair comparisons.

There are 2 more conditions that aren't written because they are just common sense.
1: The child must want to be seen this way.
2: The child must not purposely be in danger in any way.

The first says consent of the child must be gained as well as parental consent.
The only difference is child consent can be verbal, but must be immediate, whereas parental consent must be written and may be eventual (can't go back on consent if made a day before).

[Sweetchuck]

This guy finally got tossed. You can see it in the (ahem, locked) thread, apparently he was PMing one of the mods some shit about wanting to post porn.

I gotta admit - my creep-o-meter was going off pretty strong with this guy's first post.

Good riddance.