h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7016651.stm

This article raises questions (In my mind at least) as to where IS the dividing line. I have two daughters, 6 and 3 and as I suspect the majority of parents have done, have allowed them to run round the back garden in the summer with no clothes on.

We have, on occasion, taken pictures of them in paddling pools, etc, etc when they are without clothes. To us, they are innocent and wonderful shots that show what a great time they were having as kids.

But yet - assuming you took these pictures to Boots to get printed - somebody could point to them and claim they are somehow "Indecent".

My father once took a picture of our eldest in a bath when she was two, showed it to a friend of his (He had printed it at home)as he does (being a proud grandad) but the "Friend" said "You had better be careful taking pictures like that". My father then felt extremely embarrased, and ended up destroying the picture.

I am very curious as to what people think on here, particularly if you have had kids and therefore must have the odd picture of them running around with nothing on.

Porn is in the eye of the beholder. Porn is something you use to have a w**k. Is the underwear section of a mail order catalogue porn? Yes - if you're twelve and don't have a copy of Razzle handy (or an internet connection, come to that - does anyone actually *buy* porn any more, and if so, why?).

There is obviously a subset of material which is specifically prepared for use as porn. This is usually easily identifiable.

There are also people who would look at something which has clearly NOT been posed for the purposes of porn and say "That could be construed as porn." To which I say - by YOU, maybe, sicko.

SoRB

This is all a combination of English repression, embarrassment about nudity and the now ingrained reaction that naked children=peadophilia or abuse etc etc etc.

When in fact naked people of any age is natural especially when they are your own kids.

It is the lack of common sense. The Prudery and the knee-jerk control and lack of thought from people that bit by bit is making children persona-non-grata. Soon there will be no photos of children from this and future periods (until people get back their common sense) as it is seen that if you take pictures of kids then you 'could be' or 'are a peadophile.

I have never wanted kids, not overly bothered with them BUT I do think photos of kids (or anyone) are great to take to capture the joy of life. The problem is no-one dare take photographs of kids playing as you can gaurantee the first thing people will think is Peadophile...not photographer.

So, best thing to do is dress all children in burkhas...solves the whole problem in one...and it will stop them running around supermarkets...

"does anyone actually *buy* porn any more, and if so, why?"

Lack of photo quality printing abilities. And those oh-so fascinating articles of course.

I saw a censored version of this picture yesterday and I have to admit it made me uncomfortable. Two girls aged about 6 (?). One is standing above another girl who is lying on her back, knees up, legs spread with her genitalia facing the camera. (Think about the dude sliding beneath the cheerleaders in The Big Lebowski ).

The same pose adopted by adults could certainly be termed pornographic.

I've never considered myself a prude or any sort of moral guardian, but this picture certainly crossed a line imo.

Art can be porn (see Boris Vallejo) but generally requires a bit more of an imagination than most 'proper' porn will credit you. Junk food for the wrist, I find. But then I am a hopeless romantic, and terminally vanilla.

I have a rack full of books behind me, with a naked baby boy baring his arse on the cover of each one. It's the Department of Health advice book on caring for a child from birth to five years, and is given out by midwives to all first-time mothers.

and don't forget that sometimes porn becomes art.

Some of the nude paintings displayed in the private apartments of titled gentlemen of past centuries are now considered fine art.

I think that porn is porn when it is degrading to either the subject, the viewer or the artist. I think that some news photography is violent porn and debases the human condition.

That's very true Feisor.

To some extent it's the way a picture is used that determines whether or not it's porn.
Some porn can certainly be artistic; commonplace pictures can be used for pornographic purposes.

In this case, I too saw the censored photo and didn't even consider especially worthy as art. As someone's snapshot of their kids, OK, but not for public display.

Nan Goldin's work is utterly banal and insipid. She oft does naked teens and images fail to be moving in the manner of art, porn or erotica.
The only shock value comes from how utterly boring and nihilistic they are.

Yeah, I think Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was porn.

"It is the lack of common sense. The Prudery and the knee-jerk control and lack of thought from people that bit by bit is making children persona-non-grata. Soon there will be no photos of children from this and future periods (until people get back their common sense) as it is seen that if you take pictures of kids then you 'could be' or 'are a peadophile.

Eh

Were you trying to be ironic? There is currently a boom in digital photography Id bet there are more photos of children being taken and posted on the web now than at any time previously. Just by keeping my eyes peeled since reading your post earlier Ive seen a wealth of recetly produced photographs of children, but I work in a building that has a pre-school section and Ive been producing a flyer for a youth club and a school sports package. Alfster, why when you posts are usually more grounded and rational are you resorting to baseless hysterical ranting over this subject?





"Yeah, I think Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was porn.

Do you really Arnie? Does it fall within what we normally term porn ie people in various states of undress doing stuff that if you were caught doing it in public in most parts of the world it might lead to embarrasment for those being seen, those seeing it or even arrest. Or are you using some other definition?

I dont get the impression it was porn because it was immensely popular with faithers, with many of them breaking the law in attempts to get their children deemed by the certification boards as too young to see it, in to cinemas to watch it.

Maybe for the puposes of this thread we could just stick to the internationally recognised standard of: images and acts that are illegal for veiwing by those under 18 and are also illegal if the production includes those under 18.


Now Bill Hicks the dead comedian had some very funny and interesting things to say about pornography. Like you lot have mentioned he noticed that in European based cultures porn and art have a shifting dividing line. That if you surround a certain scene with plot and shoot it on black and white film then its art but the same thing in a different context is just a skin flick.

As SoRB has said the mailorder catalogue is or atleast was entry level porn for a very long time, but it was never intended for as "one handed reading material". So is it porn. If you sit on a table does it make it a chair?

"Nan Goldin's work is utterly banal and insipid. She oft does naked teens and images fail to be moving in the manner of art, porn or erotica.

Never seen any of her stuf to my knowledge, but as with Arnie Im interested in why you say it lacks artistic merit.

Goldin is famous enough that you thought it ok to drop the naem without any background detail and indeed I seem to recall the name. That to me suggests that some people do see something in Goldins photographs do they see artistry or do you think that your appreciation is flawless and that thsoe who appreciate those images appreciate it with their loins rather than their brains?


Going back to the issue of double standards raised before a 14 year old in a bikini is acceptable for braodcast a fourteen year old in equally concealing underwear would probaly mean a few angry letters being sent in to the "offending" TV station. Yet at the dramatic end of the Beslan school seige we were shown over and over images of childrenin various states of undress. Then there's Africa where TV news can reaptedly show us pictures of dying naked children, but if a presenter from one of the news prgrammes is naive enough to get pictures of her naked healthy children at bathtime to be developed at the chemists she's in for a shock visit from the plods.

I think we need laws to set clear limits so we dont get wholesale abuse and exploitation. I dont think you need to be overly worried if you are in the habit of photographing your toddlers au naturel. Kids learn when they are supposed to be prudish all by themselves. They grow out of it in their own time but still arent going to turn back into willing subjects of nude photos for their parents so then if you want that just consider yourself or anyone who tricks or coerces kids into it as a wrong-un.

More importantly once you are sure you are acting within the law I think you should live your life as you see fit. If you are posing childen for photographs they dont have the capacity to understand the impact of that you intend to be consumed by other people then you are exploiting their innocence and that is wrong legally and morally. Artisitc merit cannot change that fact.

one love

"I think that porn is porn when it is degrading to either the subject, the viewer or the artist. I think that some news photography is violent porn and debases the human condition.

I really dislike this statement for many reasons. I wont go into why just now, but I might come back to it later rather than kick-off the topic drift right now.

"I think that porn is porn when it is degrading to either the subject, the viewer or the artist. I think that some news photography is violent porn and debases the human condition."

I must say that rereading my post in the grim light of day I agree that it lacks exactly what I meant (I shouldn't post when tired ) but I think that most people will understand what I was getting at. I may repost later (or I may not )

It seems this thread was started due to the Elton John paintings thing, which involved children. I think that gives it another twist. A picture of an infant laying naked on an ice bear rug is nothing, but a 25-year old doing the same could be porn. Paintings or photos depicting adults in certain situations considered sexual, will be very different when applied to children. We should be careful with looking at childrens photographs and judging them as we would with an adult situation.

Blicky

Firstly, thanks for the compliment on my 'usual' posts.

Possibly I was a little over the edge but when parents cannot film at sports days or school plays without the written consent of every other parent it shows how far this country has gone from simple common sense.

What a cyclical sentence...that's like saying an egg is an egg when it hatches...well, no an egg can still be an egg when it's boiling in a pan of water.

There's planty of amateur porn(so I have heard) where the subject and viewer are not being degraded...indeed it's good to see 'amateur' pron out there with people enjoying themselves.

But from your cyclical definition of porn is a housewife from Leeds flashing her bucket on the net porn as it's not degrading her or the viewer?

Strangely enough, there are people who are into sexual activities that specifically degrade them or their subjects but they do it because they enjoy it and gives them a sexual buzz and enjoyment...is that bad? Especially, when it is all consensual?

Excelletn, such well balanced views (no not a comment directed at anyone in particular.... more just an 'overview reaction to the posts thus far) Photos of people, undressed, naked, clothed, 99 years old, 18 years old 21 years old 9 years old, are not necessarily criminal in themselves, posetion of such pictures shoudln't automatically mean someone is a pedophile in the same way posetion of a bluddy great hunting knife doens't make you a mass murderer, its waht is done with them and to what purpose they're put, as with many other things. Arbatorally saying pics which conform to some given persons ideas are those that indicate the person possessing them is obviously a pedo is about as logical as the UK police/secret services making illegal posetion of matterial documenting how to make boms for terrorists, when such matterial is freely availible in every library in the country. Its all about intent but nothing makes us feel as good as having another law passed to make us feel safe at night

"there are people who are into sexual activities that specifically degrade them or their subjects but they do it because they enjoy it and gives them a sexual buzz and enjoyment...is that bad? Especially, when it is all consensual?"

No - I wouldn't consider that pornographic, but it should be kept, if not private, at least hidden from those that it may offend.

Exhibitionism is a little difficult in that to get satisfaction in a lot of cases it involves offending others - but, in the main, if anything occurs between consenting, informed adults and doesn't hurt or offend someone without their permission I don't think that it's pornography.

I´ve just watched the video Cblack has linked.

The photo is not artistic, but this is a matter of opinion, my opinion. It is not pornographic neither, and it is also a matter of opinion. However, if we consider the definition of pornography we can be a bit objective: " Pornography: It refers to books, magazines and films that are designed to cause sexual excitement by showing naked people or referring to sexual acts"
But that definition is not still objective: Milo Manara´s comics can be considered porno, but they are erotic and absolutly artistic, this is my opinion.

So? The seized photo of those two girls has been considered pornographic because a pedophile could have sexual excitement with it.

Pornography for me has to do with too explicit images (or words), eroticism with suggestion.
Pedophilia shouldn´t be mixed with the word pornography. It´s a mental deasease.

About photos of your kids:
If someone see "dirtiness" in any photo of your naked children it´s obvious that the viewer has something dirty inside him/her

As a general answer,

Art becomes Pornography when it excites people's sexual awareness.

As to what excites different people, well that is a different question altogether, and one quite outside that range of the 'thought police' in Boots etc.

Novo