Neither do I have a problem with the depiction of naked children or adults. Have you been "comprehending" my posts? Clearly not. Have you even bothered to read them? Probably not.

Have you read my comments regarding the circumstances where child nudity, and photography of naked children, is perfectly natural and normal? Obviously NOT!

Nudity, nudism, naked children, family photos of naked kids.......all these types of things are PERFECTLY NORMAL AND NATURAL.

The "sicko" stuff comes when "adults" seek to "sexualise" nude, underage children in commercially produced, posed photographs. It's the "soft porn" version of child pornography. It's "soft" enough (and made this way "ON PURPOSE") in order to enable it's acceptance amongst people who would gain pleasure from viewing underage, nude children, but who would otherwise reject more sexually overt photographs. It's also made "soft" enough so that it can be passed off as "legitimate art", especially to people who associate art with freedom of speech. "Most" of these art lovers would of course instantly reject the photography were it to push the boundaries more.

Therefore, the producers of this "so-called art", understand these boundaries perfectly well. Their nude, underage subjects are sexualised to only a "degree"....... just enough to create controversy, and thus FANTASTIC PUBLICITY FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHY. It's a deceitful manipulation of the innocence of childhood........for the purpose of adult gain. And these morons attempt to pass it off as "art". What crap!

The mere thought of an underage grandchild of mine posing nude for professional photography is utterly repugnant to me. But there are "some" adults who believe that freedom to do as they choose takes precedence over children being allowed to be "CHILDREN".

The answer is; whenever these phony "art" scumbags come on a forum, write to a newspaper, or discuss the issue anywhere, that people who believe children deserve the "priority" speak up and crush these lovers of nude, underage child photography.

Fascinating how both philips and her male antithesis are starting to sound just as silly as each other :)

The only thing you've crushed is your credibility, the respect you deserve in these discussions and the intelligence of those who partake in these media witch hunts, which you've freely admitted to here:

phillips>"The answer is; whenever these phony "art" scumbags come on a forum, write to a newspaper, or discuss the issue anywhere, that people who believe children deserve the "priority" speak up and crush these lovers of nude, underage child photography."

An interesting detail that reveals your bigotry and fraying sanity is your need to combine "lovers", "underage" and "child" together in the same sentence. I think you are a very confused individual with an infantile grasp of art in general and what you are talking about specifically. I think that, the mask is coming off for you and your hate is really showing here. This has nothing to do with facts or reason, but your emotional hangups.

Read those two sentences I told you about. And also know that you are attacking and abusing the models and parents. No doubt if you saw them in public you would be spitting and jeering at them. People like you are a disease.

It's fascinating how superficial your comment is CJ Morgan and what that says about you. :)

"Steel and Stg are regular defenders of the porn industry and this art is no different except it is exploiting kids instead of adults. Their view that it is not child exploitation reminds me of Bill Clinton who claimed oral sex with Monica wasn't sex. It has the same logic."

Posted by runner, Sunday, 27 July 2008 11:01:57 PM

And kiddies, Richard Head here gives us an example of slander. Why don't you make like your book burning mate Gibo and call us paedophiles to top it off.

I'm not pro naked kids. I'm anti politicians telling me what is and what isn't art.

Now let's examine the overall argument from steel:

(1) His very first post is awash with his political dogma with his anti religious, anti feminist, anti socialist, anti conservative, anti social engineering comments.......and that folks was just in "ONE" of his sentences. Yes, that's right.....ONE sentence. He is clearly a loony. That's ok, he has the right to be a nutcase. He seems anti EVERYTHING that doesn't share "his" narrow minded opinions.
Not one single word of concern about children.......only words about "his" rights.

(2) On page 1 he continues with his politically correct denunciations of feminism. You know the type..........old fashioned men like steel who feel powerless and blame those horrible, evil, nasty "feminists" for all their woes. Steel is definitely a nutcase.
Again, not one single word of concern about children......only words about "his" rights.

(3) On page 3 he tells us that the parents of nude, underage children are happy with their kids being photographed, and that the photographed kids are happy with it. He's "implying" that being "happy" with it means that it's ok. Is it possible to think of logic more skewered than that? Oh yes, he then goes on to "imply" in the same post, that underage children have the ability and right to "consent". CLEARLY, steel is incapable of logical thought process. He's so blinded by his political agenda that he raises arguments that reach the height of stupidity. He goes on to accuse people who object to nude, underage child photography of........wait for it, child abuse. I'm afraid poor old steel is off with the fairies.

(4) On page 4 steel says the anti underage, nude kids debate is really about "Islamist and Christian Extremists".........again he can't keep his politically inflexible dogma that he believes in out of the debate. His view on this subject is blinded by ideology and his weird version of political correctness. He's simply crazy.

To be continued..........