|
The erotic nature of anything is entirely subjective.
I'd say the only people who need to worry about 'erotic' pictures of young people which seem quite unerotic(?) to many are... those who find them erotic or potentially erotic i.e."I can see how that is erotic in this or any context" such as, say... The New South Wales police and those who are hand-wringing over these pictures.
Why is it that they think these pictures are erotic? Is it because they themselves find the images disturbingly erotic on some level?
Nudity !(necessarily)= Erotic
Humanity and its obsessive prurience...
[As a complete and potentially offensive aside, I'd love to see some research with those who are extreme in opposition to 'art' or non-sexual imagery of children (like perhaps indulging in reductio ad Hitlerum) in the same vein as that conducted with vehement anti-homosexuals vis-a-vis gay pornography (demonstrating in many cases that the more strongly anti-homosexual the chap, the more physically aroused he was by the images - to the point of tumescence while professing disgust) ]
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
|