"Thought crime"

well there goes japan

Exactly; bye bye Mangas of big-eyed girls in school uniform exposing their breasts to cyborgs.

Drawing and writing don't involve inflicting harm, therefore they shouldn't be illegal. The law as proposed as absolutely pathetic.

But about par for the fuckwits running the Government.

What are the chances of this actually becoming law though? It seems completely unworkable. Vague enough to criminalize art, manga and things that wouldn't raise an eybrow in other countries.

I can't see it happening.

I'd hope so, but in a culture where p@3dophiles are joint no. 1 worst thing EVAH with Muslim terrorists, I can totally see this going through.

Teenage boys are kicking each other to death on our streets: let's ban Manga schoolgirl porn.

Maybe we could one-up China and BAN children altogether.

Isn't this also tied in with the plans to make S&M photography illegal as well?

"If there are no children to abuse, none of us can fall prey to their evil wiles and be lured into a life of p@3dophile crime. Therefore we will let M Night Shyamalan kill all our children with gaseous rubber plants."

x-post not heard that, Dom.

me either

????

There's an activist group protesting against it, but I really don't want to Google "S&M photography protests" at work.

http://www.unfettered.co.uk/

oh, I haven't heard of any of this because it's the u.k. government, makes sense now.

I'm just gonna draw underage kids but then have them say in a speech bubble that they're over 16. Take that, the man.

I was just looking at the "NON-CREEPY TEENPOP THREAD" and immediately became a criminal :(

Stupid fucking country

quick, post all your hand-drawn child porn before it's too late!

Coming soon: new law on "looking at kids a bit funny".

(zing deleted)

I used to say, for a laugh, I would take up smoking and fox-hunting whne they banned those, I don't think I will be taking up paedo-porn drawing either

Teenage boys are kicking each other to death on our streets

This reminds me I meant to phone my boy up last night and ask him if he carried a knife.

I'd hope so, but in a culture where p@3dophiles are joint no. 1 worst thing EVAH with Muslim terrorists, I can totally see this going through.

Teenage boys a close 2nd

robots in dis guys

^^^ should be banned

I meant to start a thread about this but here's as good a place to mention it I guess: there's an awesome well respected Aus photographer called Bill Henson, who for many years has featured in his work sexually ambiguous, dark, strange photographs of young people - sometimes teens, and sometimes semi-naked - and they are disquieting and curious and challenging but they'd never raised much of a fuss.

Until last week, when his new exhibition got raided by the police in Sydney for promoting child pr0n because of a couple of pics of a 13 year old girl and a boy, naked (darkly lit, very subtle, not at ALL suggestive). The media have gone BATSHIT over this incident, and are very divided over the issue. Art vs porn, consent vs porn, yadda yadda, it is insane. And ridiculous and embarrasing - this artist has had a great standing in the art world for YEARS and suddenly in 2008 he's a great big perv and should be arrested. Even our PM has waded in and labelled the girl's pic "revolting".

The poor girl, is all I can think. How must she feel now, being labelled "revolting" by our PM? Gah fuck this country.

to be fair he is probably a big perv

it's just that there's nothing necessarily wrong with being a perv

A well-respected perv

At least it stopped Australians kicking Muslims to death for a minute or two, so in a way it's good it happened.

Australians are so racist.

Nah we just hate everyone.

Oh wait no thats me.

hurrah for indiscriminate hating!

I saw that story Trayce. I don't think you can necessarily excuse the guy just cos he's respected in the art world, but I haven't looked at the pictures so I can't judge whether I think they're prurient or not. Prurient's a big part of Art, but getting kids to join in is (knowingly?) at least treading a thin, wobbly line.

At least it stopped Australians kicking Muslims to death for a minute

The UK is so much more enlightenend, here Muslims kick each other to death

Well there was definitely consent and parental involvement, and really, the pics aren't (to my mind, at least) exploitative, esp not when you compare to advertising and whatnot. OK her top half is exposed and it is a fairly grey-area kind of photo in that regard but nnggrrh I dunno, slippery slope etc.

The UK is so much more enlightenend, here Muslims kick each other to death

-- Tom D., Wednesday, 28 May 2008 11:22 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Sometimes they brainwash chip shop Aspies to do it as well.

Can you take pictures of topless 13 year-olds at this point in time without being aware that there are issues around what you're doing? It's hard to fall back on the "nudes in Art History" defence.

what if it's of your kids swimming?

Bill Henson article with pics; http://www.egothemag.com/archives/2005/08/bill_henson.htm

I guess you wouldn't publish those, to be fair. xpost

Stupid century

Okay I've seen some of those pics now and they look designed to provoke a strong reaction to me.

she Trayce, in Finland there was recently a case where an artist was prosecuted because she'd made an art piece criticizing child porn, and had included some child porn material she'd found on the net (the news items didn't specify what it was, but I presume it was pictures) to her artwork. And she was prosecuted for distributing child porn! The court case ended a couple of weeks ago, and she was convicted of the crime, but didn't get any punishment, because the judge believed she'd acted under good intentions. Still, if this judgement isn't disputed, it seems in Finland you can't use child porn material even to publicly criticize child porn. As if some paedophile is really gonna walk into an art gallery and wank in front of an anti child porn piece.

What's his take here? "I am questioning society's reaction to teenage sexuality" or "I like doing nudey teenagers pics"?

Having flicked through Google, Henson's images are often beautiful, but as Noddle says, at this point in history practically everyone in the Weestern world (and a hell of a lot of people beyond) know the connotations of images like his. We're at a point when we're more prudish somehow than the Victorians; any inch of exposed flesh sexualizes the exposer / exposed.

I think there are ways of desexualising nudity, Nick, but a lot of Henson's pics here look deliberately sexualized. And I'm not saying this makes him a perv, but I do think it's a bit of a put-on to act surprised when other people think the pics might have paedophiliac connotations.

Noddle, that's cuet

"Botticelli painted nudey kids" just doesn't cut it here, y'know?

I agree re; Henson's pics being sexualized (my last post was an x-post with about four others; should have said), but I don't personally find them erotic or offensive particularly, I'm not struck that they're p@3dophilic, but can see how they carry a weight of that with them. The Botticelli defence is moot at this point in history, aye. Did Botticelli see a "nudey kid" as beautiful or erotic, though? Will we ever be able to see a "nudey kid" as beautiful/not erotic again? Should Nevermind be sold in brown paper bags?

how's this sexualised in any way folks?

http://www.egothemag.com/archives/images/artculture/billhenson_main1.jpg

it's not like they're shagging. they're just trying to sell deodourants.

Let's try to avoid posting images here, folks

soz.

Should Nevermind be sold in brown paper bags?

it's okay because that's just a baby and wanking in front of babies is ok.

http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.html

Adolescence IS a highly sexualized time, and probably always has been...

I don't know; when I think about things like age of consent, society's mores on these things always seem so arbitrary - 'childhood' didn't exist till the Victorian age, 'teenagers' didn't exist till the 50s, kids used to be shoved up chimneys and down mines, etc...

Oh I'm quite sure Henson knows his pics provoke reactions. Thats the whole point! I first saw similar pics about 10 years back and I remember thinking "wow thats kind of... why am I so disturbed?" But isnt that what art is meant to do?

it's political correctness gone mad xpost

They are kind of arbitrary mores - but contravening them is some kind of statement, I think. I personally wouldn't be comfortable asking 13 year-olds to pose for some of those pics.

porn is also to do with provoking reactions though.

It's what art's meant to do sometimes, aye. I think his stuff looks as if it does it well, from what I've seen. Rather than evoking stirrings in my loin it evokes... a wistful, almost jealous nostalgia; like "I wish my teenage years had been so glamorous; sweaty nights on urban rooftops being aloof with ennui" kind of thing.

kids used to be shoved up chimneys and down mines, etc...

Or made to work in sweat shops for so we can all wear cheap clothes... errrrrr, hold on there

How about 15 year olds, Noodle? Or just-turned 16 year olds? Who LOOK 13?

Getting a bit Nathan Barley now

Or made to work in sweat shops for so we can all wear cheap clothes... errrrrr, hold on there

Exactly; but for some people, because it happens abroad it's OK. Would Henson's pics be controversial if they showed scantily-clad aboriginal teens lazing around?

It is, Tom, but the lines of acceptability are so odd, so hastily drawn, and so inflexible that they can let things through they'd otherwise try and stop.

Rather than evoking stirrings in my loin it evokes... a wistful, almost jealous nostalgia; like "I wish my teenage years had been so glamorous; sweaty nights on urban rooftops being aloof with ennui" kind of thing.

OTFM

Anyway, Britain's Got Talent.

Underage Talent

had a good wank over andrew johnston?
xpost

I think artists should be allowed to produce whatever sort of pieces of art they want, as long as no one is harmed when making them. Catching paedophiles is a whole different business, and it's not like preventing the distribution of all sort of pictures of under-16-year-olds that someone somewhere might find titillating is gonna make paedophilia magically disappear. On the contrary, if art and other media help to see nudity of children as a normal, not necessarily erotic thing, it might take away at least some of the sexual appeal some people have for child nudes.

I see the video for "Baby One More Time" has not been banned from YouTube.

When a global multinational does it: no crime.

Rather than evoking stirrings in my loin it evokes... a wistful, almost jealous nostalgia; like "I wish my teenage years had been so glamorous; sweaty nights on urban rooftops being aloof with ennui" kind of thing.

OTFM

seconded.

Rather than evoking stirrings in my loin it evokes... a wistful, almost jealous nostalgia; like "I wish my teenage years had been so glamorous; sweaty nights on urban rooftops being aloof with ennui" kind of thing.

that's kind of how it's like when I watch porn though, but with double penetration instead of ennui

I think paedophiliacs, like drug dealers, are what you call a "good enemy"... Politicians can get away with totally suppressive measures when they argue it's only against these evil people, because few people dare to criticize these measures in fear of being associated with said evil people.

except we're mostly criticising it here

Oh Kenpaws. err xposts

It is problematic when a situation arises where even discussing something like this in a supportive light leads to being labelled negatively for it (cf communism, or whatever)

Rather than evoking stirrings in my loin it evokes... a wistful, almost jealous nostalgia; like "I wish my teenage years had been so glamorous; sweaty nights on urban rooftops being aloof with ennui" kind of thing.

OTFM

seconded.

-- Maria, Wednesday, May 28, 2008 12:04 PM (6 minutes ago)

Thing is, you thing logically about those kinds of situations and it suddenly stops being glamorous and exciting and sensual and cool, and it becomes scary, squalid, Harmony-Korine-esque nastiness. Boredom, ignorance, clumsiness, misery.

X-post; Trayce OTM.

Yes well Harmony Korine is a good side point here - how come cinema gets away with this?

(or does it?)

Sorry I feel like I've hijacked this thread a bit.

Not hijacked at all; this is completely relevant.

I guess Korine almost gets a pass because cinema = pop culture = "they MUST be young-looking adults" whereas photography = art = high culture = decadent toffs actually abusing kids? My logic is totally skewed there and I'm not phrasing very well, but possibly.

Anyway, the Brit School.

I'm a little conflicted with this issue I have to admit. I'd never want to be dismissive of the exploitation - in art or anything else - of young people. But then again, why can we not explore our own physicality, our frailty, our stupid broken or beautiful humanness? It all comes down to the perception our current society and media have placed heavily on the protection of children. And obviously no one is going to complain about that in the main. It's this unnesecary sexualising of the basic human body outside of a sexual context I'm frustrated about and feel at a loss to get right, somehow.

Ugh scuse typos I'm rushing with my typing.

thing is no one's being exploited in a drawing

Except the life model.

There is definitely a contemporary hysteria about child pronogaphy. Actions that harm children or take advantage of children for sexual purposes should clearly be crimes. Real, actual children should be protected from such activities.

Sending people to prison over fantasies is well past rationality. People cannot help their sexual proclivities. Look at shoe fetishists. We don't prosecute people for possession of shoes, but we do prosecute them for theft of shoes, or breaking and entering to obtain shoes, because people can and should be expected to control their actions. That's where the line needs to be drawn, imo.

This sort of stuff is the slippery slope argument taken to a reductio absurdum.