Sleepyjack

I just remember this now. Anyway, i was watching this animal/environment show about outback Australia a week or so ago, and it had stuff about a family touring around the outback and coming across the different animals and environments etc in the outback.

Anyway, it had been going for a bout half an hour and i was enjoying it when my brother was just curiously watching from afar and made the comment "eeerrrr, you paedophile"... As throughout the show, and at the current point, the kids were naked a lot of the time, especially when they went swimming in the waterholes. I hadn't thought anything of it, unitl he said that?

I was wondering though, how can the sensors of these things can determine what is suitable and unsuitable nudity? I mean just stating a fact that the kids (little boy and girl) were shown completely nude, and you'd never see the adult equilivant of that, at the same time of day, or at all?

For adults, it seems that if there body is not part of a medical scene or some nude art thing, for art purposes, it's often simply regarded as a sexual thing? Even if sex isn't involved? And cut out or not shown until later in the night?

As for them cutting out adults this way, it got me thinking about the second thing. In that, would it be appropriate to show the kids naked during mid-day TV. I mean, if a paedophile was to watch it? isn't that illegal? or even if i watch it? As the "adult films" are on late at night so kids can't watch them, but is it appropriate to show this kind of stuff, if a paedophile is watching?
Their classsification of nakedness and what is sexual, causes sexual thought, or whatever confuses me?

hmm, i guess it sorta is leading into art/natural body and pronography debate, but i don't think i've ever considered the classifications when kids are involved? seems to be a huge grey area, as theres the innocence about them, so they can't be sexualised, but, there are some pretty dodgy people out there....

Your thoughts?

Tirian

I don't have answers to your questions, but would like to kind of add to the questions as well.

What about legality - who is going to be in the legal position to be judging porn from art ? I live in Canada, and was curious about this question recently. I did some google searching, and came up with very little real information.

I found one quote that states for underage subjects, porn would be anything that includes sexual acts, or any nude photos that are designed to focus primarily on the genitals. This was quoted as the law in Canada, but was without references so I'm not sure how closely that reflects reality.

An ex-policeman told me that this sort of thing is supposed to reflect local standards, and as such a judge would have to decide in a case, and the judge could say that since local attitude is any nude underage depiction is child porn, he could find that this was porn.

For me nude children in a swimming hole is not porn since I used to go swimming in the buff in drainage ditches as a kid. The TV program you were watching I would not call porn, but others in my community may.

I'd love it if someone had some links to law sites with information on this. (Canadian especially) Or some knowledge to post to add to this link. Looks like my job is going to require that I have some information on this subject.

Dilbert1234567

i think Tirian hit it on the head.

as long as it is not sexual its usualy ok.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

slimshaydee

I saw this show on Animal Planet or National Geographic yesterday and it had boys of i think 16 getting circumcised in Africa. They showed everything. I had to change the channel

MooseMan3000

In the United States, there have been many Supreme Court cases regarding topics just such as this (unfortunately I can't recall the names off hand... sorry =P ), and our current laws go something like this.

It all relates to obscenity. According to the Supreme Court, anything considered "obscene" is not technically covered under the freddom of expression clause of the First Amendment, and as such that is when it can become illegal.

However, the definition of obscenity is not set in stone. In order for something to be considered obscene, it should meet 3 requirements...

1) There is no artistic or educational value
2) (Can't remember this one... any help?)
3) It represents a prurient interest in sex. (That's how it was worded)

So on a basic level, anything that meets those 3 requirements (again, I apologize that I can't remember the second) can be considered "obscene."

However, Tirian is correct when he says that it is effectively up to a judge to decide that. The wording of the Supreme Court's decisions said that, essentially, what is considered "obscene" is almost entirely up to the locality. One community (city, county, state... again, loosely defined) could be considerably more lenient than another in what it considers obscene.

As far as your question regarding the animal show you were watching, you would have a very difficult time making the argument that it was obscene. First of all, there is clearly an educational value to the program. Some might argue that the children didn't need to be shown, but then you look at the third part of the guideline... nobody could argue that the show had a "prurient interest in sex."


So basically, my answer is "it depends." =P

analog

analog's rule of nudity and people:

no one, not even a church-going, bible-thumping hard-assed puritan is going to object to naked kids. if anything, they'll think it's "cute". once you start hitting anything around 10-ish, they (the masses) start to show their disapproval. it's all about advertiser revenue, especially here in the states.

thespian86

I havn't posted in awhile so i might be a little rusty.

In my oppinion i don't have a problem with nudity. As i grew up i was subjected to it because i had a younger sister who didn't stop wandering around the house topless in the morning until she was 15 and my father sat around in his underwear on sundays to watch football, jersey and briefs. In the morning it wouldn't be rare to see a family member walking back from the shower nude.

Therefore my response is that sex is an amazing thing but the human body is just our form. It is just like swearing, the words mean nothing except for the reputation it brings with it. If women had covered their arms for all of time then men would be in the locker rooms saying "Did you see that movie yet? Jennifer Aniston has a nice set of arms on her."

The human form is natural and although it has the ability to give feeling of pleasure it is just a form. Don't get me wrong, i'm a man and i'm very actracted to the female form as i am sure many women find men atractive. But the "sexual reputation" of the human form has been taken way out of context. Thanks

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.