Quote:
Originally posted by Joan
[B]...Under the current Child Pornography Laws nudity does not always equal child pornography. If a child is nude, partially nude or fully clothed is not the determining factor; what the child is doing and/or having done to him/her is. If the image is lewd, sexual in nature or the picture focuses on the genitals, then chances are - it is child pornography.
Please help support the ASACP Mission by becoming an Approved Member![SIZE=3][COLOR=purple]
|
I would hope that mere nudity never becomes the standard. Classical paintings and sculpture, fine photography, etc., have long featured nude children and cherubs.
The equation of nudity with pornography is part of the sexual schizophrenia of our society. Out of one side of its mouth, our culture espouses the idea that the body is beauiful; out of the other it seems to say that there is something wrong with observing this beauty.
If the goal is to deny pedophiles any images they might appreciate, stop a minute and remember that J-Lo and Brittany Spears and Cindy Crawford are all still sexually attractive with their clothes on. To reach that goal, you'd have to eliminate ALL images of children which is just insane.
As Bertrand Russell observed (I have to paraphrase, not having the original quote with me, but this is close enough): "If you forbade anyone to look at trains, and a committee cut images of trains out of books and magazines, and shrouded paintings of trains, would this decrease people's interest in trains? No, it would have the opposite effect: It would create a morbid curiosity about trains."
Just look at the effect that attempting to prevent teens from having cigarettes has had. All teens have recognized the wisdom of not smoking, right?
Right...