rationalskepticism.org

Gallstones wrote:Federico, I don't know if I can give you the definitive answer you want, but I will try. The rules here have been imported from RDF and are, thus, essentially the same. For example, this is the wording from RSF FUA

Sex and Nudity
Discussions on sexuality are limited to professional scientific studies and topics. No discussions of personal sexual issues, desires, or problems. No images, descriptions or discussions of sexual acts. Images containing nudity are limited to established works of art or in a medical/scientific context, posted in relevant topics and must be suitable for all ages/safe for viewing at work. All threads or posts containing material which contravenes the above will be removed from the site immediately.

I am going to try and clarify the permissions by parsing out those terms that I think are the guides.

No discussions of personal issues....
established works of art
medical/scientific context

My recollection of the history of the topic at RDF was that it went on for pages and pages. I don't see why the topic can not be discussed as long as the parameters outlined above are respected.

Thank you very much Gallstones: You have been very clear, and I will abide by the rules in a topic where, as they say in Canada, you need good skating ability. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the interpretation of the rules is different in our new home, with more flexibility and understanding of the issues which, again, are: What constitutes Art and what is Pornography and particularly Pedopornography.

At this point I believe some definitions are necessary which, of course, reflect my points of view.
Essentially, IMO, while it is extremely difficult to define Art since this is in the eye of the beholder and subject to the evolution of tastes and mores, Art is not made for the purpose of arousing some and disgusting others by the explicit depiction of sexual organs and/or sexual acts, and, at the most, leaves you bored or uninterested. Pornography's purpose, on the contrary, is exactly that of shocking some people and of inducing sexual arousal in others.
Pedopornography uses prepubertal children for this purpose, which usually is achieved only with Pedophiles, while persons aroused by pornography utilizing pubertal children aged less than 17years are called ephebophiles.

Let me give you two examples.

The first shows one of the pictures of nude, prepubertal, 12 year old Brooke Shields taken with the consent of the mother and the assent of Brooke.
This photograph of Brooke Shield, together wih many others, have been shown in several places and particularly at the Musée de l'Elysée, in Lausanne, Switzerland.
IMO, there is absolutely no whiff of pedopornography in this photograph which has been taken very artistically by Gary Gross.

For the second example I have chosen one of the many portraits of pubescent girls made by the famous French painter Balthus .
Do you find it pornographic? Certainly not. Although it may arouse ephebophiles, it is generally considered Art.

Let’s call it quits for now.