Anthropology or Kiddie Porn?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 6:47 PM GMT
    So, recently I was in Papua New Guinea, riding across the country in a public transport mini-van, jammed in with eight locals and a huge stack of cardboard cartons containing about 800 baby chicks (for reals). As we were rolling along a dirt road in the jungle past a village of thatched huts, I saw a bunch of kids around 4 to 8 years old playing in a stream, bare ass naked. It was a really cute scene.

    I would have taken a photo but I couldn't get to my camera in time. But then later I thought in this day and age, maybe I shouldn't have a photo of naked children on my computer, no matter how innocent the intent (believe me, I have absolutely no sexual interest in children).

    When I reached my lodging I met up with a few young (early 20s) Australian government volunteers who were working on programs to keep kids out of crime. They told me they were cautioned not to take photos of naked native kids, for that very reason.

    But wait - isn't this the sort of thing that gets published in National Geographic all the time? What makes it OK for them and not for me? And if it's not OK for me, could I be arrested just for having a subscription?

    I remember a few years back, a guy down South got convicted for selling home movies of kids splashing around in a swimming pool - with swimsuits on. No nudity whatsoever. They convicted him because he was marketing the videos to pedophiles. So, the whole thing seems very subjective - they can prosecute you for just about anything, if they want to. Seems very close to an Orwellian "thought crime".

    Your thoughts? Should I have taken the photo? Would you have taken it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 7:05 PM GMT
    Athaleet saidSo, recently I was in Papua New Guinea, riding across the country in a public transport mini-van, jammed in with eight locals and a huge stack of cardboard cartons containing about 800 baby chicks (for reals). As we were rolling along a dirt road in the jungle past a village of thatched huts, I saw a bunch of kids around 4 to 8 years old playing in a stream, bare ass naked. It was a really cute scene.

    I would have taken a photo but I couldn't get to my camera in time. But then later I thought in this day and age, maybe I shouldn't have a photo of naked children on my computer, no matter how innocent the intent (believe me, I have absolutely no sexual interest in children).

    When I reached my lodging I met up with a few young (early 20s) Australian government volunteers who were working on programs to keep kids out of crime. They told me they were cautioned not to take photos of naked native kids, for that very reason.

    But wait - isn't this the sort of thing that gets published in National Geographic all the time? What makes it OK for them and not for me? And if it's not OK for me, could I be arrested just for having a subscription?

    I remember a few years back, a guy down South got convicted for selling home movies of kids splashing around in a swimming pool - with swimsuits on. No nudity whatsoever. They convicted him because he was marketing the videos to pedophiles. So, the whole thing seems very subjective - they can prosecute you for just about anything, if they want to. Seems very close to an Orwellian "thought crime".

    Your thoughts? Should I have taken the photo? Would you have taken it?


    I think Anthropology is a study while child porn is jerking off to kids naked. Yea there is kind of a difference. Yes, studying humans and cultures that allow human children to be naked is different.

    It reminds me of when I went to Lego Land in Germany. My god, there were so many naked butts, peni, and such that I got tired of seeing that crap.

    That is all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 7:50 PM GMT
    Athaleet saidSo, recently I was in Papua New Guinea, riding across the country in a public transport mini-van, jammed in with eight locals and a huge stack of cardboard cartons containing about 800 baby chicks (for reals). As we were rolling along a dirt road in the jungle past a village of thatched huts, I saw a bunch of kids around 4 to 8 years old playing in a stream, bare ass naked. It was a really cute scene.

    I would have taken a photo but I couldn't get to my camera in time. But then later I thought in this day and age, maybe I shouldn't have a photo of naked children on my computer, no matter how innocent the intent (believe me, I have absolutely no sexual interest in children).

    But wait - isn't this the sort of thing that gets published in National Geographic all the time? What makes it OK for them and not for me? And if it's not OK for me, could I be arrested just for having a subscription?

    Your thoughts? Should I have taken the photo? Would you have taken it?


    Don't go there. Its just one of those great taboos in our society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 7:52 PM GMT
    Context.

    National Geographic is a time-solidified publication. They can publish anyone naked and it'll never be seen in a sexual tone (though many a youngster has jerked off to some aborigine boobies).

    If you have a folder in your computer with images of tropical nature and suddenly there's an image of native naked children I don't think anyone would bat an eye. If you had that exact same image in a folder full of gay porn images it could look extremely incriminating. It's a dicey gray area. In your position I would have probably abstained as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 8:00 PM GMT
    Ariodante saidContext.

    National Geographic is a time-solidified publication. They can publish anyone naked and it'll never be seen in a sexual tone (though many a youngster has jerked off to some aborigine boobies).

    If you have a folder in your computer with images of tropical nature and suddenly there's an image of native naked children I don't think anyone would bat an eye. If you had that exact same image in a folder full of gay porn images it could look extremely incriminating. It's a dicey gray area. In your position I would have probably abstained as well.


    Pretty much this. Not to mention that most publishers had to evolve over the years to stay "politically correct" to the changing times and views of the general public.

    Living in Africa I too faced the same problem when I wanted to take pictures of a village, but there were topless woman walking about. :/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 8:27 PM GMT
    Chainers said
    Athaleet said


    I think Anthropology is a study while child porn is jerking off to kids naked. Yea there is kind of a difference. Yes, studying humans and cultures that allow human children to be naked is different.

    It reminds me of when I went to Lego Land in Germany. My god, there were so many naked butts, peni, and such that I got tired of seeing that crap.

    That is all.


    Isn't Legoland in Denmark?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 8:29 PM GMT
    Tazo995 said
    Chainers said
    Athaleet said


    I think Anthropology is a study while child porn is jerking off to kids naked. Yea there is kind of a difference. Yes, studying humans and cultures that allow human children to be naked is different.

    It reminds me of when I went to Lego Land in Germany. My god, there were so many naked butts, peni, and such that I got tired of seeing that crap.

    That is all.


    Isn't Legoland in Denmark?


    I dont fucking know man, all Im trying to say is staring at a little kids junk sucks...lol.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 8:36 PM GMT
    Photographer Sally Mann was accused of child pornography when she showed pictures of her children playing in the yard naked. The work is very beautiful and not sexually suggestive to the viewer or degrading to the children.
    It records moments in childhood that are joyful, free, and innocent.

    Obviously some things are clearly meant to be porn, but some art critics claim that even this can be viewed as legitimate art. Jeff Koons did a lot of pieces of him and his wife fucking (she's a former Italian porno star) and people bought the work as art.

    I don't see how people can view nudity as inherently evil. Do they bathe or shower in thier underwear? Do they think that undressing for a medical examination is a sin? It's like we're still in the dark ages.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 8:54 PM GMT
    Hmm, not sure how we got from appreciating native culture in Papua New Guinea to "staring at little kids' junk" in Denmark.

    Of course, Ariodante is right about context, and the difference between being a respected publication and some random jerkoff with a camera (although every one of Nat'l Geo's photographers started out as a random jerkoff with a camera).

    What concerns and saddens me is that someone with no evil motives needs to keep this kind of thing in mind and maybe miss out on the shot of a lifetime because, if something happens to go horribly wrong, it would be very easy for a prosecutor to spin a very different context in a court of law.

    As I said, I didn't take the photo - but only because I couldn't get to my camera in time. It wasn't until later that I thought of the potential ramifications. All I saw was a cute scene - which may speak to my innocence here in the forums, but wouldn't be of much use in a legal defense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 9:38 PM GMT
    jawrhed said Dean Koontz did a lot of pieces of him and his wife fucking (she's a former Italian porno star) and people bought the work as art.



    You mean Jeff Koons.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 10:14 PM GMT
    If you take a picture of naked kids in an industrialized nation it's child porn because those are human children. If you photograph some poor brown child in some other part of the world it's the same thing as photographing the chickens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 10:15 PM GMT
    that wasn't an attack on you btw...because I can definitely appreciate the concept of the shot. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 10:22 PM GMT
    dekiruman saidIf you take a picture of naked kids in an industrialized nation it's child porn because those are human children. If you photograph some poor brown child in some other part of the world it's the same thing as photographing the chickens.


    Lol that is so offensive it's like something I would say!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 10:51 PM GMT
    dekiruman saidIf you take a picture of naked kids in an industrialized nation it's child porn because those are human children. If you photograph some poor brown child in some other part of the world it's the same thing as photographing the chickens.
    Unfortunately, that's the mindset of society: If the kids are from another country and dark skinned, they're not really human.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 11:30 PM GMT
    Have you heard about a sports blogger in Boston who was facing a similar issue? Here's this blogger in Boston who worships at the feet of Tom Brady. He posted a picture of Gisele Bunchen and their toddler at the beach on his blog. The child is naked and the blogger is basically saying that Tom Brady is such a stud that his child has a huge dick.
    It wasn't pornography, just a child playing at the beach. The blogger wasn't trying to make the child seem sexy. He was just an idiot and (because?) he is a huge fan of Tom Brady. The issue is that he made a statement and got people to focus on this toddler's penis, so got into some hot water.

    http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/28844112/detail.html

    Troll post in 3-2-1..
    (you've been warned)
    dekiruman saidIf you take a picture of naked kids in an industrialized nation it's child porn because those are human children. If you photograph some poor brown child in some other part of the world it's the same thing as photographing the chickens.

    A poor brown child in an industrialized country is still a human child?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 11:59 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidMy thoughts?

    Hym....can I take naked photos of you instead? icon_razz.gif




    I was just gonna say. You're smokin hot!

    Don't risk the possible misunderstandings which may happen. I consider this all the time even when I'm taking "long arm shots" of myself. I'm cognizant of who is in the background.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 12:02 AM GMT
    Ariodante said
    jawrhed said Dean Koontz did a lot of pieces of him and his wife fucking (she's a former Italian porno star) and people bought the work as art.



    You mean Jeff Koons.


    I got to see this one at the SFMOMA.

    JeffKoonsMichaelJacksonAndB.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 12:24 AM GMT
    Athaleet saidHmm, not sure how we got from appreciating native culture in Papua New Guinea to "staring at little kids' junk" in Denmark.

    Of course, Ariodante is right about context, and the difference between being a respected publication and some random jerkoff with a camera (although every one of Nat'l Geo's photographers started out as a random jerkoff with a camera).

    What concerns and saddens me is that someone with no evil motives needs to keep this kind of thing in mind and maybe miss out on the shot of a lifetime because, if something happens to go horribly wrong, it would be very easy for a prosecutor to spin a very different context in a court of law.

    As I said, I didn't take the photo - but only because I couldn't get to my camera in time. It wasn't until later that I thought of the potential ramifications. All I saw was a cute scene - which may speak to my innocence here in the forums, but wouldn't be of much use in a legal defense.


    Welcome to Real Jock, where the only thing that is innocent is, um, well, uh, er...????? Help me, somebody! There's GOT to be something here that is innocent and/or naive!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 12:29 AM GMT
    Athaleet said

    What concerns and saddens me is that someone with no evil motives needs to keep this kind of thing in mind and maybe miss out on the shot of a lifetime because, if something happens to go horribly wrong, it would be very easy for a prosecutor to spin a very different context in a court of law.



    When in doubt, shoot it in black and white with an SLR and make it into a large format print. No one will ever question it was taken for the sake of art.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 12:31 AM GMT
    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256


    “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
    (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
    (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
    (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
    .


    (10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
    (11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.


    -------------------

    So, strictly speaking I do not think a court would find you guilty of possessing child pornography, however lesser informed law enforcement officials may err on the side of caution and arrest you, which is time consuming for you icon_razz.gif

    And should you be found guilty:

    2260A. Penalties for registered sex offenders

    Whoever, being required by Federal or other law to register as a sex offender, commits a felony offense involving a minor under section 1201, 1466A, 1470, 1591, 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2251, 2251A, 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425, shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years in addition to the imprisonment imposed for the offense under that provision. The sentence imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any sentence imposed for the offense under that provision.



    So yeah, in this case, leave only footprints, take no photos icon_razz.gif


    PS - I saw naked children playing in a fountain in Manhattan a few weeks ago and there was an old guy staring at them like it was Christmas come early and this made me think of that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 5:53 AM GMT
    Ariodante said
    jawrhed said Dean Koontz did a lot of pieces of him and his wife fucking (she's a former Italian porno star) and people bought the work as art.



    You mean Jeff Koons.


    Jeff Koons correct & thanks - it was Friday after one of those weeks that feels like a month and I guess my brain was off for the weekend.