The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

Child Pornography Called Art

Disgusting abuse of a child for monetary gain.
No, this did not happen in Evil Satan and Little Evil Satan lands. This disgusting piece of filth happened in good old Australia. Yep, the same country that has been bending over backwards to cow-tow to Islamic extremists. When you open the door, all kinds of crap blows in.

The family of the girl who appeared in a nude photo on the cover of an art magazine has welcomed the image's approval by the Classification Board. Yesterday the board approved the image of Olympia, who is now 11.

The Classification Board reviewed the edition and gave it an unrestricted (M) rating. This means it can be published but discretion is advised for readers under the age of 15.

An image of a nude child sitting in front of, or placed onto, a painting has been allowed to be published on the cover of a public magazine. With the only stipulation that there be discretion on the part of buyers who are under 15. Why did they make this ruling? It's ART, you fool!
"The board notes that the images and text within the publication that relate to this debate about the difference between art and pornography and the sexualisation of children requires a mature perspective," she said.

It was allowed in order to spur debate over whether there is such a thing as child pornography. Thank you liberals !!

What do the parent's of this young child have to say about this? Heck, it was THEIR PHOTO. They can't be more pleased.

Olympia's father, art critic Robert Nelson, has welcomed the decision to approve the image.

He says the ruling should put an end to the debate debate (sic?) about the exploitation of children and artistic freedom in Australia. Mr Nelson says the furore has exposed some paranoia about nudity.

This lame excuse for a father wants MORE child nudity. Having a block against child pornography, heck even calling it child pornography, is just a paranoia against nudity. Hey, here's an idea. Let's just all go over to this guy's house, and demand that his wife and daughter just walk around everywhere they go naked. Let's follow them into the tub. Let's follow them to the store as they parade their pride. I am sure they would be happy. Heck, probably so. Another reason why some people should be banned from breeding.

Mr Nelson agrees there are risks in using naked children in art, but he says that should not stop it from happening.

"The long chain of moral issues would surely be beyond the apprehension of a six-year-old, so what I've been satisfied with is that that component of consent is happily taken on by the parent in the same way that parents consent to all kinds of activity that might involve some degree of risk," he said.

The editor of Art Monthly, Maurice O'Riordan, says the Classification Board has made a sane and just decision.

" Yep, there may be risks that my daughter may end up molested, or another's daughter may be raped by child perverts, but who the hell cares. It's ART!! If by these images I demean women and children further as just objects of sex and lust, then by golly I did the right thing!! If my daughter grows up with a wholly distorted view of the world then my job as a loving caring father is complete."

Don't worry, Sha'ria law will take Australia over in the next decade and this stuff will finally be put to end. Publicly at least.



#1 Donkeyrock 17-Jul-2008
Basically, Cap'n, that last line is what you're arguing for: Shari'a Law. Men can't control themselves from their base desires, so women must cover themselves to stave of the wolves. No matter the age, no matter the position, any female who isn't covered head to toe is going to incite unbridled lust.

Sorry, I'm totally against you on this.
#2 captainfish 17-Jul-2008
No, No, NO.

I am not arguing FOR Sha'ria law in order to combat child pornography.

I was only linking the fact that Australia has been having issues with muslim extremes. And who wants to instill Sha'ria law? My statement was a sarcastic linkage.

There is no way in hell that I am for child pornography or the use of the fascist Islamic Sha'ria law. Both are abhorrent to me.

DonkeyRock, you of all people should appreciate sarcasm.
#3 Brian C. Ledbetter 17-Jul-2008

I'm with the good Cap'n on this one:—There should be some [i]minimum[/i] standards of decency expected by society. Such standards would tend to imply that parading around what is essentially child pornography is [i]socially unacceptable[/i].

That being said, I'm more disturbed by the photo appearing [i]here[/i]. Shudder.

#4 Cletus 18-Jul-2008
i remember in school we were studying "art" in english because it was the "art" of some early 20th century poet (forget who) and there were photos of naked young girls that looked almost exactly like this one. same pose, same background. and they were teaching this shit in school.
#5 Donkeyrock 18-Jul-2008
See, here's where my liberal upbringing shows through. Cap'n, I know you were being sarcastic, but I was pointing out that your sarcasm is actually prophetic.

The assumption that a naked child will instill lust in men is right in line with Shari'a law, which is why Shari'a pushes for full covering of women. However this is not the case.

As a normal adult, you don't look at a naked child and think sex, you probably think of innocence (a common subject in art). But with such a virulent reaction to nudity, you push forward an ideal that that child's body will create lust.

If you believe clothes are protection from "perverts", then talk to people who have been sexually assaulted on the street. Lust isn't visual it's mental, chemical, hormonal. Just like a picture of a naked man doesn't inspire lust in a heterosexual man, this child won't inspire lust in most people. For those that are inspired to lust for the child, clothes don't matter, just as clothes don't matter when one sees a hot woman. She's desirable, no matter the state of undress.

Now, the over-the-top reaction of making the mother and daughter walk around naked because the daughter is naked for a picture is outlandish. Conversely, should they force you to sit around and do nothing while they parade in your house and do whatever they wish? Of course not, and neither should they be subjected to such fantastical ridicule.

My point is that such nudity is only controversial in the minds of zealots. A rational look at the situation shows no reason to fear that image or fear for the child. The only shame she'll encounter is from people who hate her body simply because it exists, and she's not more likely to be assaulted because of the image unless it's from people who want to hide her away and make her feel shame at being human.

And Brian, seriously, nudity is pornography? Such a definition would mean breastfeeding is sexual assault, that the great masters of renaissance art were just peddling sexual titillation, and that the human body is nothing but a shameful object that must be covered under thick robes and hidden away from uncontrollably lustful eyes. Are we not better, more controlled, than our cousins from hundreds and thousands of years past? Biology may dominate us, but our ability to think rationally helps us to transcend base instincts.
#6 captainfish 18-Jul-2008
Thank you DR, and I see and understand your point, along with your point of view.

However, I think we just disagree on this. I do not see anything sexual or perverse in pictures or home-movies of babies oddlers naked in a tub or running around naked having fun. They don't know no better and they are still at that age of "innocence" like you said.

But, here is where I diverge. This child is 10 years old. She is nearly a teenager. She understands what it means to be naked. She more than likely understands what sex is. She has seen the seedier side of life, either through the TV or what she hears from other people.

And Brian did not say that nudity is pornography. I guess we both are taking our contexts to extremes. He mentioned standards. This is where I stand as well. Everyone of us has a sense of where standards should be, and each setpoint is different for each person. Nudity in media is rated based on what is shown and conducted while the people are nude.

Some believe that drugs of all kinds should be legalized because it is just a drug that only affects the person who takes them. They believe that it is their body and thus no one should tell them what they can do to it or with it. But then we do have laws against such things. We have laws that also prevent you from harming yourself. We have set standards for protecting society as a whole from objects or actions that have been deemed harmful to societies well being and moral basis.

[i]Biology may dominate us, but our ability to think rationally helps us to transcend base instincts. [/i]

However, that may hold true for you and a percentage of people of the world, but for the rest of humanity, base instincts still dominate. Thus the reason we don't walk around nude. Thus the reason some places have laws against nudity in public. Thus the reason why we have laws against drunkenness in public. We have rules against kids viewing "mature" subject matter. Because, this is part of our society's desire to protect children from the "baser" side of humanity. To shield them from adult themes that we have determined that they are too young to digest.

I believe there has to be standards. Standards reinforce the beliefs and morals of the society. When a society does not have standards, then anything is treated as acceptable. Anarchy and chaos reigns. This has been proven time after time through history.

And no, while I do not view a naked child as an object of lust, other people will. Why give them that opportunity to fulfill their desires? And yes, when I see naked woman, part of me is thinking lustfully toward her. This is just who I am. I am a single man. When I look at art, I see art, but then I also see naked people. How can I not?

There has to be standards. If this father were to take personal home photos of his naked 11 year old daughter to a store for developing, he would be arrested and rightly so in my opinion. I am just not seeing how this is any different.

(And I do make a distinction between people of this age and adult nudity, as adults know the full ramification of their actions and are consenting.)

Sorry, DR, just gonna have to be in disagreement on this one. Good discussion tho.
#7 Rooster 18-Jul-2008
Why do I have to read this on a political site? That's disgusting. Not to mention... BORING. Bring back the Brian-only Snapped Shot!
#8 captainfish 18-Jul-2008
Welcome back Rooster.
I am sorry you found it boring. I try to find relevant topics.

This one was on photography though not necessarily photos misused by the media. But, then again, I tried to make the argument that this photo WAS misused in order to present a bias on an issue.
#9 Rooster 18-Jul-2008
Why would you ever give a serious response to anything I say? :)
#10 captainfish 18-Jul-2008
It's Friday afternoon. I want to go home already and my coffee has lost its kick.

And the Cisco router has locked up again for the 3rd day in a row and its pissin' me off.

#11 Donkeyrock 18-Jul-2008
First off, the Cisco router is dead. Long live the Cisco router! :>

Rooster… well, you know.

Now back to the fun. Cap’n, our points of view are pretty close to polar opposites, but I’ll keep writing just to clarify my view. This kind of controversial talk is my kind of fun.

If I recall correctly, the girl was 8 when the pictures were taken, and as this furor erupts, she’s now 11 years old.

Phrases like “They don’t know no better” and “She has seen the seedier side of life” are ones that I have trouble with because it conflates nudity with shame and perversity. Nudity is probably the most natural we can be, as we are brought into this world bare. Clothing has evolved in style and meaning, but it’s mostly to keep us protected from the elements, not to keep us protected from each other. If clothing is mostly to keep us protected from each other, then we should welcome Shari’a law.

Lack of nudity — meaning keeping certain bits covered — is what causes titillation. When your biology says you want something but it’s hidden away from you in plain sight, this creates frustration. This is something being noticed in the Muslim world where sexual frustration is being channeled into the Jihad. When seeing the object of your desire in plain sight, that object becomes less frustratingly desirable over time to the point of it becoming commonplace. This is what happens with nudists. New nudists are shameful and gawky, but as they get used to seeing nude women and men around them all the time, the shame and frustration is sapped from them. Seeing this phenomena, one can conclude that nudity itself isn’t wrong or perverse, and can in fact be good.

I, personally, would never want to allow full nudity in public, but not because it’s dirty or prurient, but because it’s unsanitary. I wouldn’t be keen on sitting where bare-assed people have been hanging out because they would probably leave behind smegma and e. coli. Can’t have that.

As to Brian’s comment, he did say the image of a naked child was child pornography, and essentially agreed with your interpretation, so if nudity is child pornography, then by that definition one could say breast feeding is child molestation, etc. Now Brian won’t post my Photoshops anymore! See what you made me do, Cap’n?! lol

Standards. We all know media makes money by fascinating and titillating us, otherwise we don’t watch, so media standards are a poor measuring stick. Media is a reactionary force only. The law, too, is a reactionary force. Laws are enacted only after something occurs that creates fear. Unfortunately, the law punishes the victim in many cases, whether it’s drug use or nudity. To put someone in jail and force them to face the dregs of society because they didn’t have something covering their nipples is outrageous and wholly unacceptable in my not-so-humble opinion. These laws are called “protection”, but they don’t punish perpetrators of crimes, they punish those who might be attacked by criminal elements, all on the assumption that to put yourself into a potentially compromising situation is equivalent to assault and rape. Cat meat imam from Australia, no?

Again, as you said, it comes down to standards. Shall we punish nudity, or those who would take advantage of the nude? Should we jail the parents of a naked child, or those who would gleefully subject them to shame and humiliation — and rape in jail — because they painted or photographed something eminently natural? We can prove that the image of a naked person, at any age, is not harmful to anyone, so why should they be punished because such an image might make someone else think it’s okay to assault and rape that naked person? Our standard should be to punish those who would cause physical harm to a nude person, not to harm the nude person in the hope of preventing an assault and/or rape.

So sayeth the Donkeyrock. :>
#12 Brian C. Ledbetter 18-Jul-2008
Donkeyrock, your photoshops will [i]always[/i] find a welcome home here. :)
#13 Donkeyrock 18-Jul-2008
Whew! I thought my high paying career in Photoshop commenting was over! lol
#14 captainfish 18-Jul-2008
Hey DR, Don't give up on the photoshops. I highly enjoy them, even if they have a libertarian slant. hheheheee jk

[i]Our standard should be to punish those who would cause physical harm to a nude person, not to harm the nude person in the hope of preventing an assault and/or rape.[/i]

Sorry, but can't ever see how mandating clothes can be seen as "punishing" a person and not the perp. BTW, IMHO breast feeding does not expose the breasts in a sexualized way and is used to FEED babies who depend on mother's milk. How can feeding babies be equated to molestation of a child?

But, we can agree to disagree.
#15 Donkeyrock 19-Jul-2008
One last time. I guess this'll be the last one I post on this topic:

Brian pays me $10,000 per Photoshop of Ahmadinejad, and I have to pay for my crack addiction, so I won't give it up. lol

Mandating clothes means punishment for not wearing clothes, hence jail time for being naked. So by doing something that doesn't cause physical harm, people without clothes are punished with physical harm (jail, assault, rape) under the legal guise of preventing them from being physically harmed by those who would assault and/or rape them. Uncool.

Also, if plain nudity can be redefined as pornography, then any kind of skin-baring can be redefined as something more sexualized. For example, breast feeding, which involves baring the female breast and allowing a minor child to put its mouth on it can be child molestation. Yes, it's the wrong definition, but that's my point: you can't redefine nudity to mean pornography.
#16 J. Dorn #2 30-Jul-2008
You all have me very confused. Both the author and follow-up commentators...

What on earth is wrong with a child - naked or clothed, if the child and her parents are fine with it? Is a government really suited to preempt parental choice. Based on what reason? Because they believe that they are protecting children? C'mon folks--That's not the reason. The real reason that they (and you) want to suppress the image is because they are uncomfortable that others might find it sensuous or even erotic.

And if some viewers find the photo sensuous (or heaven forbid: sexual), what is wrong with that? Are some of you taking the position that it is unreasonable (or wrong) for others to find a child sexually appealing?

Unreasonable? Of course not! It is simply a fact. Children are pretty on many levels and a significant fraction of unsuppressed adults appreciate them. Yes - even on a sexual level - without molesting, raping or abusing the child - nor degrading or reinforcing a demeaning opinion about women.

Call me JD
#17 captainfish 30-Jul-2008
Thank you JD for those far-left, radical, MBLA comments.

You're sick. Fair warning, stay away from kids.
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us