Originally Posted by
JDNSW
I was not going to say anything more on this thread, but I have problems allowing this to pass. Obviously you are implying that because I have argued against your views I am a "sick and twisted", and I have to take exception to this.
You use emotive words such as "exploitation", "degradation", "crap", when it has been agreed by the official censor that there is nothing wrong with the images. Unless you accept that nudity is in itself offensive (and you say you don't), then there is no basis for saying there is any exploitation or degradation.
I am not trying to come up with a "valid and just reason for this sort of degradation" because quite simply, there is no degradation taking place. Any exploitation is no more than is the case with ANY artist portraying ANY subject, and then making a profit from the image - and without this how can any professional artist make a living?
The fact that a magazine was crucified over similar photos is totally irrelevant except to the extent that it shows a few very vocal critics have similar views.
Since there is no exploitation or degradation taking place, conventions and treaties on protection of children are irrelevant.
Nobody is going to argue with your freedom to forbid your child(ren) from being photographed in this way, but in my view this freedom should not extend to forbidding other parents, who may have different views. After all, you hardly want them to interfer in your parenting unless they can show harm is coming to the children.
I won't even comment on whether it is art or not - again, this is irrelevant.
John
