Post deleted

This message has been deleted by the poster

This message has been deleted by the poster

You are right to make the distinction between Paedophiles and Ephebophiles, the former is an often wrongly used word.

David Hamilton’s Age of Reason has images of pre-pubescent children, sometimes naked, photographed with soft lenses. So is it art or is it child pornography?

If the child is photographed by a man with sexual desires towards the child, it is pornography. If he adds a soft lens and a bit of lace, then its art. Is that how it works?

One viewer can see it as a work of art, another as a sexual fantasy. In the eyes of some beholders, David Hamilton’s photographs can be considered child pornography.

What is certain, the use and sexual abuse of children is growing, so child protection has to be the first consideration when considering such ‘work’, not aesthetic considerations.

I don’t know which country you are in, but in Britain, you don’t need the opinion of three psychiatrists to call someone with sexual desires towards pre-pubescent children a paedophile.



Quick Ginger, we don’t have a moment to lose!

WHO ASKED YOU ABOUT SUCH THINGS?? TRYING TO JUSTIFY SOME DEVIANT PERVERT?

Ok jgrayson_au, I agree with you on the semantics and everything but what in the world does this have to do with Ivana?

I think she´s hot
really hot!!
so
in wich category I am doc?

Men are programmed to find a lot of adolescent girls attractive. They have a lot of signs that are attractive to men physically. What we decided as a society is that we don't deem those under 18 to be mentally ready for sex so that is why having sex with adolescent is not done. Not because it's wrong to think of them as attractive physically. For God's sake if you have the hots for a girl at 18, I very much doubt you would think her yukky psychically at 15.

Oh, Britain... isn't that a country that, as an very very old person like me remembers (or is it a false memory due to senility?), gave Hamilton honor to accept him among their Royal photographers? Yes, it was long ago, but not centuries (I am not that old), so I wonder, what happened to other members? Are they suspects because being in so infamous company? And have the voters who chose Hamilton been prosecuted in the light of modern attitudes?

Everything depends on the beholder. Some music is art for certain beholders, some would say it is pointless noise. Some people wouldn't mind certain words in poems, novels, movies, lyrics, the other would demand banning of the art where they appear. The same is with pornography. Except maybe pictures sent by Mars modules there are no motifs that wouldn't be accused by somebody who could at least see some "symbols", "associations"... thinking of that, even stones and hills on Mars might be spaced in a way, that from certain angle... well, exclude these photos as well, to be on a safe side...

The sexual abuse of children is probably not growing, some indication say that it is even a bit decreasing. However, these things are more public now, so it makes us perceive this number grow. The problem has been recognized, so the victims are ready to tell, and that's why so many crimes have been identified. But the fact that the number of abuses isn't increasing doesn't make the subject any less important or disturbing.

However, people who abuse children don't need Hamilton photos or certain "controversial" movies - watching isn't enough for them, they'll rather go to their children's rooms. Children need protection indeed, but not from people who make or watch art. It is as if you would prevent non-sexual abuse of children by banning "War of Buttons" or "Kes".

If we accept that paedophilia is a psychiatric term, a mental disorder, than you won't gain one by watching "Pretty Baby". It is more likely that you get ideas how to rob a bank by watching crime movies, or start beating people (maybe only in sports club, but sometimes...) under influence of Steven Segal movies. And I don't read many posts who would ban them.