|
I have seen many adds for nappies (uh...diapers) on t.v. These show fully nude children running around, and make no attempt to obscure the genitalia. Is this a form of child pornography?
To me the issue of child-pornography v.s. tastful art is the same question of tasteful nude adult v.s. porn shoot. Ultimately it is down to the viewer to decide what it is. Pornography is a completely subjective thing, as they say Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly Pornography is in the eye of the beholder.
To me, I have no problem with nude photography of under age people, assuming it is entirely consentual. I mean, if you want to gawk at nude kids, just take a trip to a nude beach. In Europe, a beach doesn't have to be explicitly stated as being a "nude beach", its just a freaking beach! In france, a family can go during the summer to the beach for a day. Clothing is entirely at the discretion of the wearer. If you want to sit around all day in your shorts, fine! If you feel let stripping off..fine! I don't believe anyone has yet turned into a derranged raving perverted lunatic after seeing some naked flesh for crying out loud! What makes photography any different?
Now don't get me wrong. I am TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY against any form of child abuse/pornography. But in my opinion, in order for it to be defined as pornography, it must be overtly sexual, and being sexual with a minor is an offense. i.e. if you break the law with a minor, you are breaking a law....if you happen to be filming while you are breaking this law, you are also producing porn. "Child Porn" as referred to by the media involes non consentual sex with a minor: i.e. raping a child: This is what child porn is. Photographing a nude body is not porn.
__________________
|