Stan Halstead  wrote:
Although some may call it art, I prefer to use the word pedophile.

About the only instance I can see would be the family baby pictures of the kid in the tub, kids playing in a mud puddle, etc... To actually pose a child nude of partially nude goes against everything I see as right

You better go over to that other thread about Brooke Shields nude at ten and let them know.

Pedophilia has to do with SEXUAL attraction to children. Non-sexual images have nothing to do with it. Sadly, attitudes like this are what make this so difficult. Someone comes in screaming about pedophiles and child porn, regardless of the actual laws in place.

Stan Halstead  wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to photograph a child nude and I feel that those who do and are prosecuted deserve what they get... a 350lb lover named Bubba. LOL

Levels of maturity are determined by age, and while this is not always a sure-fire way of making the determination, it is where the law has drawn the line. That's where it needs to stay... and not crossed.

I guess it all boils down to if a photographer has the fortitude to determine if they are willing to refuse to lower themselves to exploiting children, but one who would do so would find themself in grave danger anywhere near my children or grandchildren.

My $.02

have you seen sally Mann's work?


and why would you threaten violence against a photographer who shot one of your kids nude?  they'd have to get permission to do so, so your posturing doesn't make sense.

Lumigraphics wrote:

You better go over to that other thread about Brooke Shields nude at ten and let them know.

Pedophilia has to do with SEXUAL attraction to children. Non-sexual images have nothing to do with it. Sadly, attitudes like this are what make this so difficult. Someone comes in screaming about pedophiles and child porn, regardless of the actual laws in place.

Now we all know common sense has no place on teh interwebs!

Stan Halstead  wrote:
Although some may call it art, I prefer to use the word pedophile.

About the only instance I can see would be the family baby pictures of the kid in the tub, kids playing in a mud puddle, etc... To actually pose a child nude of partially nude goes against everything I see as right

pedophilia refers to an adult  sexual attraction towards children .and children are defined as persons under 12 years of age

ephobophilia refers to an adult sexual attraction towards adolescents who are defined as persons 13 to 19 years of age

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
have you seen sally Mann's work?


and why would you threaten violence against a photographer who shot one of your kids nude?  they'd have to get permission to do so, so your posturing doesn't make sense.

Far from posturing. In case you have never heard of BACA, we have to deal with the effects of the actions from those who exploit children almost continuously. Fortunately, the courts are taking a firmer stance against those individuals in the sentencing of them to prisons.

Let me ask you this, what kind of person would want photographs of children naked? Call it art if you like, but I still say it's wrong. Fortunately, the courts agree. Photograph a child nude in the state of Wyoming and you can expect 5 to 10 years of the luxury of not having to get up and go to work. I would imagine the largest customer base for the photos of nude children would be easily found in almost every states sex offender registry.

Lumigraphics wrote:

You better go over to that other thread about Brooke Shields nude at ten and let them know.

Pedophilia has to do with SEXUAL attraction to children. Non-sexual images have nothing to do with it. Sadly, attitudes like this are what make this so difficult. Someone comes in screaming about pedophiles and child porn, regardless of the actual laws in place.

As someone who is active with having to deal with the effects of what these "admirers of the fine art of nude photographs of small children", I will (without mentioning any names) refer to the man from Gillette WY who was convicted of 6 counts of child molestation, and was found to have over 300 of these "pieces of fine art", including prints of the Brooke Shields photographs. People like that make me sick.

I'm done arguing the point. Laws are in place to protect the innocent for a reason and I feel that anyone who violates this law deserves all the benefits that the prosecutors ask for at sentencing.

wynnesome wrote:
What's the point?

Really, why is there even a need to mess with shooting nudity with underage models?

There are so many models of age, so many looks, and many can look young enough to require documentation to prove they are of age anyway.

Unless there's an awfully good reason, just, why would you even want to get into dealing with that?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual

what are the toughts

If it's your thing, so what you want to do.

Robert Randall wrote:

And yet here you are writing a book on the subject. Weird, isn't it?

I typically don't respond to the posts, so I had a lot to say....

Stan Halstead  wrote:

Far from posturing. In case you have never heard of BACA, we have to deal with the effects of the actions from those who exploit children almost continuously. Fortunately, the courts are taking a firmer stance against those individuals in the sentencing of them to prisons.

Let me ask you this, what kind of person would want photographs of children naked? Call it art if you like, but I still say it's wrong. Fortunately, the courts agree. Photograph a child nude in the state of Wyoming and you can expect 5 to 10 years of the luxury of not having to get up and go to work. I would imagine the largest customer base for the photos of nude children would be easily found in almost every states sex offender registry.

All that posturing and you still haven't answered the questions at hand.

And there is a BIG difference between art portraits and sexual exploitation. People like you who can't tell the difference- my God, and you are someone who is in an official position dealing with this?

And like it or not, the courts DON'T agree with your extreme position. Maybe you should go down to Barnes and Noble tomorrow with the cops and try to have the staff arrested for selling books by Sally Mann and Jock Sturgis, since they contain nudes of children. You'll find out how wrong you are.

Lumigraphics wrote:

All that posturing and you still haven't answered the questions at hand.

And there is a BIG difference between art portraits and sexual exploitation. People like you who can't tell the difference- my God, and you are someone who is in an official position dealing with this?

And like it or not, the courts DON'T agree with your extreme position. Maybe you should go down to Barnes and Noble tomorrow with the cops and try to have the staff arrested for selling books by Sally Mann and Jock Sturgis, since they contain nudes of children. You'll find out how wrong you are.

+1

JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual

what are the toughts

First: does she have more talent than just being 16? Would you shoot her if she was 25? if so, get a good release from her mother and make sure she is there at the shoot...and just to be safe, find out what church your police chief goes to...

just sayin'...

MJM

Stan Halstead  wrote:
Let me ask you this, what kind of person would want photographs of children naked? Call it art if you like, but I still say it's wrong. Fortunately, the courts agree. Photograph a child nude in the state of Wyoming and you can expect 5 to 10 years of the luxury of not having to get up and go to work. I would imagine the largest customer base for the photos of nude children would be easily found in almost every states sex offender registry.

The issue I have with your attitude is that you think if a person has a nude picture of a young child, it means he is a pedophile and it isn't so.

Pedophiles WILL collect ANYTHING that's nude, whether it be art or non-art. With your logic, it's like arguing that having a photograph of a naked man makes you a homosexual and it ain't so. If a homosexual man has made a porn film directing heterosexual sex, does that make him a heterosexual? No!

Stan Halstead  wrote:

As someone who is active with having to deal with the effects of what these "admirers of the fine art of nude photographs of small children", I will (without mentioning any names) refer to the man from Gillette WY who was convicted of 6 counts of child molestation, and was found to have over 300 of these "pieces of fine art", including prints of the Brooke Shields photographs. People like that make me sick.

I'm done arguing the point. Laws are in place to protect the innocent for a reason and I feel that anyone who violates this law deserves all the benefits that the prosecutors ask for at sentencing.

So he had photos? Big deal. I have a book of war photography from WWII. And, dare I say, even a DVD or two of war movies. That doesn't make me a war monger, or a soldier, or a lover of violence, does it?

What if a convicted molester had books on cooking? Would you say that an interest in cooking pasta correctly turns people into molesters?

Stan Halstead  wrote:

As someone who is active with having to deal with the effects of what these "admirers of the fine art of nude photographs of small children", I will (without mentioning any names) refer to the man from Gillette WY who was convicted of 6 counts of child molestation, and was found to have over 300 of these "pieces of fine art", including prints of the Brooke Shields photographs. People like that make me sick.

I'm done arguing the point. Laws are in place to protect the innocent for a reason and I feel that anyone who violates this law deserves all the benefits that the prosecutors ask for at sentencing.

I'm concerned YOU are the pervert here; anyone who equates nudity = sex, particularly in reference to children and adolescents has to be one sick puppy.  Then again, our country seems to be so full of sick puppies these days that parents can't photograph their children. Hell, I've known families that bathe together and jump in the sauna, with kids from 4 to 13, and nothing sexual goes on.

To address the topic, I wouldn't do it because there are too many sick puppies who equate nudity = sex, particularly with adolescents, and it would get me in trouble.

K A S wrote:
So does photographing indginous people of another country disgust you if they are topless?   Dont subscribe to national geographic.
NAKED does not = SEX
How many people have pics of their kids in the bathub as children.  Nothing sexual about it.

They're studying to be cops and prosecutors; they are too pure to own any distressing images showing the skin of anybody.

That was harsh, but my experience with people in the police "criminal justice" fields is that they tend to be holier than thou, but willing to pin anything on anyone to make themselves look good.

Meanwhile, something as natural as children playing in the tub gets their attention as "Porn."

I just don't get it sometimes.

MJ Mack wrote:

You are one sad sick bastard Stan...

MJM

Actually, I would say that the one who is sick is the one who feels the need to photograph young children.

Makes me wonder why you would go to the park... hmmm???

RJ Ohrstedt wrote:
I'm concerned YOU are the pervert here; anyone who equates nudity = sex, particularly in reference to children and adolescents has to be one sick puppy.  Then again, our country seems to be so full of sick puppies these days that parents can't photograph their children. Hell, I've known families that bathe together and jump in the sauna, with kids from 4 to 13, and nothing sexual goes on.

To address the topic, I wouldn't do it because there are too many sick puppies who equate nudity = sex, particularly with adolescents, and it would get me in trouble.

I am pretty well convinced that the ones who advocate this type of "art" are the ones I wouldn't trust around children, but to be fair, I'll let the FCPA determine that after they examine this thread. Exploitation of children is wrong, no matter how you try to disguise it.

Stan Halstead  wrote:
Let me ask you this, what kind of person would want photographs of children naked?

Ok Stan....
Let me provide you with a short partial list of neked childrens collectors.


1)Parents
Yep.... strangly they find their neked munchkins cuter than all others and take photos of them all the time.... even Neked.  Some of these neked photos even become treasures family heirlooms.

2)churches
Yep they collect neken cherub art.... have for years

3)Musemums
Yep they also collect neken cherub art.... have for years.
Some even collect modern nakey art photos.... of childrens even.

4)All those American who bought Anne Geddes books
I don't know who they are.... but somebody bought them.

So WOW....... Thats a lot of perverts by your standards

MJ Mack wrote:

You are one sad sick bastard Stan...

MJM

I'm still trying to figure out how it is that I am supposedly sick. For working to protect children from those who expoit them? I guess if that's sick, then I am proud to be so. I only pray that others will be dedicated to being equally as "sick". Those who exploit children deserve serious prison time. I hope they get it. Photographing children nude only provides fuel for their fires.

Stan Halstead  wrote:
Photographing children nude only provides fuel for their fires.

This is true, I find the concept of 12chan to be DISGUSTING and they hide behind laws that are advocated here.

Stan Halstead  wrote:

I am pretty well convinced that the ones who advocate this type of "art" are the ones I wouldn't trust around children, but to be fair, I'll let the FCPA determine that after they examine this thread. Exploitation of children is wrong, no matter how you try to disguise it.

Interesting.....

Stan Halstead  wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how it is that I am supposedly sick. For working to protect children from those who expoit them? I guess if that's sick, then I am proud to be so. I only pray that others will be dedicated to being equally as "sick". Those who exploit children deserve serious prison time. I hope they get it. Photographing children nude only provides fuel for their fires.

Stan
Your problem is you seem to only see bad intention.
You cannot convict everyone because of the guilt of the very very few.

It seems like you are unable to separate harmless nudity from abuse.
The two are not the same.


Your argument is flawed... It's like saying.....
Some serial killers have been found to collect fetish art work,
We should ban fetish photos because some serial killers collect them?
I mean..... Obviously Photographing Fetishes only provides fuel for their fires.