I wonder whether I could open this thread in RS since I was extremely frustrated by the censorship which, in RDF, prevented me and others from reaching a valid conclusion on what constitutes Art and what is Pedophilia.
Naturally following the RS FUA.

Surely there are specific examples you have in mind?

Federico wrote:I wonder whether I could open this thread in RS since I was extremely frustrated by the censorship which, in RDF, prevented me and others from reaching a valid conclusion on what constitutes Art and what is Pedophilia.
Naturally following the RS FUA.

Paedophilia is a human sexual orientation and art is a form of communication.

You really need to ask this: how do you tell the difference between art and pornography?

Once you have answered that question, then the same answer will apply to the question "what is the difference between art and paedophilic pornography?"

However, I'm not sure I know how to draw the line between art and pornography, or even if one exists.

Shaker wrote:Surely there are specific examples you have in mind?

I'll give you a few specific ones, but the general attitude of the RDF staff -- certainly under orders to do so -- was to be rigidly censorious towards the showing of innocent pictures of naked children and adults. Even in cases where the pictures had been universally exposed in Galleries and Museums.
Debate between posters -- which sometimes became quite lively but civil -- as to what constitutes Art and what is pedopornography, was snipped in the bud resulting, as I said previously, making it impossible to reach a conclusion on this topic.

Here is an example of excessive censorship, IMO:

"Re: pedophilia or art?
by Federico » Fri May 30, 2008 1:52 pm

Again and again: What constitute Art and what Pornography is in the eye of the beholder and mainly based on Gallery owners' opinion for the first and local jurisprudence for the latter.
Question: Is this painting Art or Obscenity?
<Picture of Lucian Freud's "The Benefits Supervisor" removed by DaveD>

If you chose Obscenity obviously your knowledge of Art is jejune since this is a painting by the famous artist Lucian Freud entitled "Benefits supervisor sleeping" which was recently sold at Christie's NY for $ 33.6m".

Here is another example of censorship:
"Re: pedophilia or art?
by Federico » Wed May 28, 2008 1:09 pm

Kevin Ronayne wrote:
Federico wrote:
FB, either you don't know what is considered pornography nowadays or you are out of your mind. Try and tell a Judge anywhere in the civilized world "Your Honor, my video showing a child being penetrated by an adult is pure Art", and you'll find yourself behind bars for quite a while.

[KR]I strongly suggest that you be a bit more circumspect in your choice of words in future ... as in please do not do that again, or it may be a second warning on your record.

[Federico] I strongly suggest you lock this thread since it is become impossible to make people understand the difference between Art and Pornography."

So -- as I said initially -- is this Forum more tolerant towards the showing of innocent, largely exposed around the world, pictures, and in the resulting debate all done within the limits of the FUA?

It is a very scary subject these days, parents are being arrested for taking pictures of their very young children naked, a near universal practice, yet now you have to wonder when the storm troopers will be breaking down your doors.

It is a crime in texas to take a picture of anyone without their consent if it your intent to use the photo for sexual gratification, more specifically, from here:

§21.15 – Improper Photography or Visual Recording

A person commits an offense if the person either:
1. Photographs or by other means visually records another
a. Without the other person=s consent, AND
b. With intent to arouse to gratify the sexual desire of any person
OR 2. Knowing the character and content of the photograph or recording, promotes the photograph or recording.

This is a state jail felony.
State jail felony: No more than 2 years or less than 180 days in state jail

It is the mere 'intent' that scares, basically makes it a thought crime.

Federico wrote:

Shaker wrote:Surely there are specific examples you have in mind?

I'll give you a few specific ones, but the general attitude of the RDF staff -- certainly under orders to do so -- was to be rigidly censorious towards the showing of innocent pictures of naked children and adults

There was a knee-jerk reaction to all sorts of related topics. I seem to remember a thread where an argument emerged about whether paedophilia and homosexuality could both just be called human sexual orientations and the powers-that-be immediately closed it down. My argument was that neither of them could be considered "illnesses" because neither had any hope of a "cure". I got the distinct impression that somebody in the admin team (or above, I don't know) was not able to cope with discussions of this sort occuring. I was left mystified as to whether the objection was to the idea that paedophilia couldn't be considered an "illness" or whether it was to the idea that homosexuality was an "illness."

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.

Is this art? You might not like it, I don't particularly, but it is generally considered to be art. Is it paedophilic? Well, the image is of two fantasy creatures - cherubs - not humans. What if they were trying to make baby cherubs, doggy style? It would be pornographic more than art, but as they are fantasy creatures, would it be paedophilia?

And then there's this famous example:



...which is the entirely innocent London Olympics logo, until you are offered the words Lisa Simpson and fellatio. And suddenly it may even be illegal, since recent UK law makes even drawings of children involved in sexual acts a crime. Don't know quite what harm that particular law intends to prevent.

In recent time, this worldwide taboo has risen about the fact that children have naked bodies underneath their clothes.

I think it really can be called a taboo in the classic anthropological sense. Any breach of this taboo leads to fierce, irrational reactions.

It's the weirdest thing. In former times, it is usually religion that is blamed for creating such taboos. But that can't be the case in this secularized world.

Anyone got an explanation?

Is this art? You might not like it, I don't particularly, but it is generally considered to be art. Is it paedophilic? Well, the image is of two fantasy creatures - cherubs - not humans. What if they were trying to make baby cherubs, doggy style? It would be pornographic more than art, but as they are fantasy creatures, would it be paedophilia?

Well ... let's call it art but bloody bad art

As to whether cherub sex would be considered paedophile porn, not by me it wouldn't, but in the eyes of the law it just might be. There was a case not many weeks back - I'll try and dig up the link, unless somebody beats me to it - where a man was arrested, prosecuted, tried and convicted of possessing so-called "child pornography" which, IIRC, consisted of cartoons or computer-generated images. They weren't photographs: they weren't images of any real children at all. Yet he was convicted of child porn offences all the same. That's how insane the law has become.

Shaker wrote:

Is this art? You might not like it, I don't particularly, but it is generally considered to be art. Is it paedophilic? Well, the image is of two fantasy creatures - cherubs - not humans. What if they were trying to make baby cherubs, doggy style? It would be pornographic more than art, but as they are fantasy creatures, would it be paedophilia?

Well ... let's call it art but bloody bad art

As to whether cherub sex would be considered paedophile porn, not by me it wouldn't, but in the eyes of the law it just might be. There was a case not many weeks back - I'll try and dig up the link, unless somebody beats me to it - where a man was arrested, prosecuted, tried and convicted of possessing so-called "child pornography" which, IIRC, consisted of cartoons or computer-generated images. They weren't photographs: they weren't images of any real children at all. Yet he was convicted of child porn offences all the same. That's how insane the law has become.

Towards the end of RDF it was a very hot and heavy thread
Iowa man sentenced to 6 months for "obcene" manga that ultimately got locked. It is now a crime in the UK is it not of having drawings of bestiality? Another man was convicted for cutting out the faces of underage subjects in pics and gluing them over the faces of adults in porn. Where the fuck does this madness stop?

I started another thread called "Thought crime-is it ever OK? This quickly devolved to a continuation of the other thread, I had hoped it wouldn't, I wanted it to stay on thought crime, which is what this is. The person on the insane, cartoons are harmful side, came out and said plainly that it is OK to jail someone for their thoughts. Scary scary scary.

Towards the end of RDF it was a very hot and heavy thread
Iowa man sentenced to 6 months for "obcene" manga that ultimately got locked.

Ah yes ... I remember

It is now a crime in the UK is it not of having drawings of bestiality?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised.

Another man was convicted for cutting out the faces of underage subjects in pics and gluing them over the faces of adults in porn. Where the fuck does this madness stop?

It's not going to stop, much less be reversed, any time soon.

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.

Federico wrote: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.

Well, here's one by Charles Mengin of Sappho. I saw it somewhere (Tate? Manchester?) and the little explanatory card said that paintings like this were essentially crypto-porn* for respectable nineteenth-century gentlemen. So I don't think you can convincingly draw a line by asserting (as you seem to) that art is unerotic. It's another example of the entropic erosion of workable boundaries between systems in communicative flux.**

(* That's my term. Quite like it. )

(** That one's Norbert Weiner. Which I only know 'cos it's quoted in a Gerry Rafferty song! )

j.mills wrote:

Federico wrote: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.

Well, here's one by Charles Mengin of Sappho. I saw it somewhere (Tate? Manchester?) and the little explanatory card said that paintings like this were essentially crypto-porn* for respectable nineteenth-century gentlemen. So I don't think you can convincingly draw a line by asserting (as you seem to) that art is unerotic. It's another example of the entropic erosion of workable boundaries between systems in communicative flux.**

(* That's my term. Quite like it. )

(** That one's Norbert Weiner. Which I only know 'cos it's quoted in a Gerry Rafferty song! )

I have never understood the assertion that pornography can't be art, what a baseless idea. It assumes that sexual arousal is somehow beneath class, something to be ignored, shunned, despised. Well, from a christian perspective, that is to be expected. For most, artistic value isn't of great importance, but that doesn't mean it can't be there. I also don't understand why there isn't art in the quality of the arousal itself, forgetting the 'artistic' quality of the image/movies in themselves. Porn unfortunately suffers from a well organized, centuries long smear campaign to deligitemize its very purpose.

Take it over to ratz.... I suspect less stodgy approach than here....

the only risk is in the website host nation and the forum rules should conform to the legal and community standards there....

all things can be a sexual fetish and children are sexual beings whether we try and hide or not...

the issue is predatory practices and exploitation....

Clothing catalogues are a pedophiles dream world....

Abolition NEVER works...

you want to TRY and categorize these masterworks by Bernini??



yet it depicts violent rape with full nudity....

•••

is the ecstacy of St Teresa sexual or religious....a tad hard to tell and they are still arguing over it half a millenium later



••••

They weren't photographs: they weren't images of any real children at all. Yet he was convicted of child porn offences all the same. That's how insane the law has become.

yet you should see what is only read on the subway and offered in vending machines on the street in Japan...

http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?it ... bcatid=127

manga is everywhere

In my effort to try and identify the difference between Art and Pornography (writing about prostitutes in Greek, according to the Oxford Dictionary), again I will show some pictures to allow you to express your opinion.

First of all, to demonstrate that the portrait of an ugly, obese, naked woman can be artistic, here is a painting by the German painter Lucian Freud entitled Benefit Supervisor Sleeping. In its ugliness it is still considered a masterpiece and has fetched $30m at a Christie's auction in New York.
The second example will demonstrate that the portrait of a beautiful woman viewed from an unusual angle is still Art and not Pornography. This is a painting of a beautiful, naked woman, shown from an unusual angle, made by the famous French Artist Gustave Courbet and entitled Origin of the World. Notwithstanding the scabrous nature of the painting, there is nothing pornographic about it, and as you can see, it is reproduced by Wikipedia together with a biography of the Artist.

Now, what about pornographic pictures? Obviously I cannot show you any examples since, by definition and according to the present standards of decency, usually it is the representation of sexual organs actively engaged in copulation or of any other explicit sexual acts. Of course, nowadays distinction is made between "soft" porn (no sexual acts) and "hard" porn (anything goes), but sometimes the difference is subtle and (to paraphrase an American Judge) "When I’ll see Pornography I will recognize it. To further confuse matters, some material is now classified as "erotic" while before was called pornographic, but this is just a sign of the evolution of taste and mores.

Federico wrote:In my effort to try and identify the difference between Art and Pornography (writing about prostitutes in Greek, according to the Oxford Dictionary), again I will show some pictures to allow you to express your opinion.

First of all, to demonstrate that the portrait of an ugly, obese, naked woman can be artistic, here is a painting by the German painter Lucian Freud entitled Benefit Supervisor Sleeping. In its ugliness it is still considered a masterpiece and has fetched $30m at a Christie's auction in New York.
The second example will demonstrate that the portrait of a beautiful woman viewed from an unusual angle is still Art and not Pornography. This is a painting of a beautiful, naked woman, shown from an unusual angle, made by the famous French Artist Gustave Courbet and entitled Origin of the World. Notwithstanding the scabrous nature of the painting, there is nothing pornographic about it, and as you can see, it is reproduced by Wikipedia together with a biography of the Artist.

Now, what about pornographic pictures? Obviously I cannot show you any examples since, by definition and according to the present standards of decency, usually it is the representation of sexual organs actively engaged in copulation or of any other explicit sexual acts. Of course, nowadays distinction is made between "soft" porn (no sexual acts) and "hard" porn (anything goes), but sometimes the difference is subtle and (to paraphrase an American Judge) "When I’ll see Pornography I will recognize it. To further confuse matters, some material is now classified as "erotic" while before was called pornographic, but this is just a sign of the evolution of taste and mores.

Personally. I see no reason porn can't be art, it is a ridiculous view driven by prejudice and a hatred of sex.

Am reminded of a quote of the master wordsmith William Safire when trying to distill some new pornography definitions, he came up with this gem

It's not the teat, it's the tumidity