Were you here when we actually went through that in the abortion thread: abort if you're raped because your child may be a rapist later?

Or did you just read it later?

Or neither, and you're just throwing that out there. In any case, don't go back and look, because every second you are in the abortion thread is a second taken out of your lifespan.

I have seen the images in question, and I do not consider them to be pornograghy.
Bill Henson never intended for his photos to be viewed as pornography, and the thirteen year old girl who posed for the photos didn't expect them to be viewed that way, eithor.

The sad thing is, this child is now considered a 'victim' of child pornography. She is considered to be an innocent child, exploited by an artist for his own personal gain.
She is not a victim. She was not harmed during the photo shoot, neithor physically or emotionally. It is only those bleeding hearts out there who believe her to be a 'victim'.

Lets look at this a different way: What IS child pornography?

How old must a child be before images are considered pornographic?
In what state of undress must a child be in before images are considered pornographic?
In what pose must a child be in for images to be considered pornography?
Does the location of the child in the images a make difference?

Lets face it, society has become irrational about this: Beach goers are forbidden from taking photos, as those photos may contain images of children. Likewise, parents who take their children to the swimming pool are forbidden from taking photos of their own children, as those images may contain images of other children.

Let me ask you this: If someone becomes aroused over the image of a child in his bathing suit at the beach, would this image automatically be considered pornographic? Some would say that any image of a child (no matter what that child is doing) that arouses a pedophile would automatically render it child pornography.

I think that, before we clamp down on the makers and distrubuters of child pornography, we need to first decide what child pornography actually is - so we are not chasing after artists such as Henson when the real criminals are still out there, distributing real pornographic images over the internet.

Right. Was she really exploited for Bill Henson's personal sex fantasies? I doubt it. I also don't think he then sold the photographs around so he could make a quick buck off her. It's art, really, and today's society is blind to it because all we see on television and in music is sexual perversion in one way or another. Buy this shampoo! A topless woman is in the commercial!

What about that woman (I don't know if this is common knowledge or not) who sent her photos to be developed at Wal Mart and the person developing them reporting the photos to the police because there were pictures of the woman's naked children in them, maybe a bathtub picture or something. The kids, if they were even old enough to be called kids and not babies, couldn't have been older than three. I just heard about it, though, I never saw the pictures. Still, kids love to be naked, don't they? They don't see it as wrong because they don't understand sex. And after all, they're dressed and undressed by their parents. The bathing suit part though I don't understand. It must be a strange local law where you are. Probably the government overreacting to child abuse.

Im sorry for sharing all of this with you but I just had one more thought on this subject. I just wanted to say that the majority of pornography on the internet is this nasty, gross, pornography. I was curious. I wanted to know, what is this. Then I look at it, and its this poor girl being ravished and disrespected, degrading herself, every way possible.

Its really kind of disrespectful to stare at a woman without her knowing, or maybe she doesnt want you to look at her. So in a way your disrespecting and degrading yourself when you look at something like that.

But anyways, thats what pornography is to me.

And Love dont fit the hand.......

It's been a long time. Anyway, i am back (was busy in some horrific worldly affairs).
We all need some change from time to time. I was a bit bored with 'LikuidFire', so thought why not try something new...looks like you LIKE it! :P.

You need Help!...and that too, a serious one!

Eroticism is in the eye of the one who is WATCHING, not in the body of the one who is being WATCHED!

Well put.

And hey, look at this! New members, old members coming back, I think the dry spell is over for PTF for now.

I would have to agree whole heartedly in that I think the whole child pornography thing is absolutely rediculous! Especially when it's related to artwork! Someone had posted about the Greeks doing it, and I completely agree with that! There's one thing for a childs nudity to be strewn all over the place in hopes of catching the eye of the person when he/she is horny, but it's another thing to have it developed in a manner where it IS art and not pornography! And again someone mentioned an imaginary line being drawn when one reaches the age of 18, it's obsurd! The whole thing in itself! I don't know where the government gets off in saying that they can legally decide what age is proper and what age isn't! Not everyone has the same viewpoints as the government, obviously!!! So in answering the Title of this thread, "Are Nude Photos Pornography?" I'm more inclined to say NO, it all depends on the indiviual and how it's perceived!

ACTUALLY it depends on the artists intent and the affect that the photo has on it's audience. If it arouses the audience in any way then it is porn. OR if it was meant to arouse the audience (whether it actually did or didn't) then it is also porn. But the audience is what makes porn porn. You could have a child playing on the monkey bars and have her panties showing. To us, it's just a picture of a little girl having a good time. To a pedophile, it could be major fapping material. But the Law can't go through EVERY piece of art with nudity out there and say whether it's porn or not because the Law has absolutely no idea how audiences will react to it. So the law labels all photos with nudity as porn. And if a photo happens to have a young child in it who happens to be naked then it's illegal porn. Simple as that. You may have not gotten any sexual arousal out of that but the police don't know that. All they see is a guy with a whole bunch of naked pictures with minors in it. So they feel it's best to not take chances. Simple as that.