Article from The Guardian

[dalekboy]

The notional paedophile now dictates what we can look at

Whatever the artistic import, images of naked children are now viewed by society exclusively through a sexual filter

I am reminded once more of episode of Reboot that celebrates Enzo's birthday. The censors insisted on the removal of a shot where Dot, his older sister, kisses him on the forehead. Their reason - it was an obvious sign of an incestuous relationship.

These attitudes and decisions say more about the people making them than anything else.

Comments

[kaths.livejournal.com]

While the issue and the article brings up some interesting points, when it comes down to it, the photo just isn't worthy of an exhibition (and I don't buy the 'it is purposely supposed to look amateurish' thing). Also, if someone publicly showed a photo of me like that from when I was a child, I'd be really pissed off.

[hibikiryouga.livejournal.com]

These are the sorts of people who wanted to ban the album Nevermind due to it's cover art.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I'm sort of fascinated and horrified by the gordian knot society has tied around itself with child sexuality. The demonisation of the paedophile, but at the same time the sexualisation of children in so many other ways, etc.

There have been legal issues in Australia essentially seeking to prevent public photography of children, not just in casual play but in public events (sporting events, for example) essentially out of fear of the notional paedophile. Its very likely these days that if you wander round with a camera taking pictures of the public, you'll eventually by approached by the police.

[bigevilogre.livejournal.com]

It makes me think of something Bobcatt Goldthwait once said where an artist had some artistic nude photos at an art gallery (True story too, long time ago) and how he could see a cop walking in and looking at the pictures and saying "Wow, this myst be pornography because it's really turning me on!"
I am against child porn, but there have been cases I have seen that tells that people are defining things on the fly, even where I work there was a case that nearly got someone arrested when literally NOTHING happened.

[fearofemeralds.livejournal.com]

Artistic merit aside, the problem with society labelling all nude or semi-nude photographs of children as being sexual, is that it actually does have the very effect of sexualising these images. Suddenly, we're all looking a nude photos of children in a sexual way - even if we have no sexual feelings about either the subject or the image. As viewers, innocent or otherwise, we are now all being cast into role of paedophile or potential paedophile. I, for one, resent this immensely.

There is nothing intrinsically offensive, sexual or erotic about an image of an infant or child in the nude.

There is a hell of a lot that is intrinsically offensive, sexual and erotic in the images of pre-pubescent and barely pubescent child models dolled up in make-up and skimpy clothing, and posing as pin-up girls or boys.

The hypocrisy in our society is truly astonishing.