Model
Fifi
Posts: 58134
Gainesville, Florida, US
CGI Images wrote:
Many people are turned on by pictures of feet too, [/b]personally the food channel gets me going at times....[/b]
I really don't care what turns people on, I care how they behave. You too!
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15162
Portland, Oregon, US
BrooklynHill wrote:
100 years ago, 12 years old was legal marrying age... true story :p That doesn't mean they passed around child porn.
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
Gary Melton wrote:
Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
wow... why are those images hosted on an "erotic 4 u" website?
... Words fail me... Wow. Gary Melton wrote:
I'm not sure if you mean they are too strong or too weak Imagebuffet wrote:
Strength or weakness of the images are irrelevant to his amazement. The images could be crummy cell phone photos of a fully and modestly clothed 12 year-old girl without decreasing the shock of them being on such a website. What business do photos of underage girls have on a website dedicated to eroticism, a porn website? They should not be inciting lustful thoughts of underage girls. Gary Melton wrote:
Poor choice of words on my part - what I meant by "too strong" or "too weak" was "too explicit" or "not explicit enough".
His statement could be interpreted 2 ways: "wow - why are these soft core pics hosted on a porn website?" or " wow - why are these explicit photos of a 12 year old girl hosted on a porn website?" It's not clear which meaning he meant. I've been on MM for 4 years - I learned a LONG time ago not to assume what someone means when they make a statement that could be interpreted more than one way.
Yes - I suspected that he meant " wow - why are these explicit photos of a 12 year old girl hosted on a porn website?", but I've made assumptions before that didn't turn out to be true. I'm a reasonably inteligent person, and I'm not here to insult anyone. You say that you think it's obvious which way he meant it...but (obviously) it wasn't obvious to me. More than once, I've seen people on here express both sentiments about similar situations - I'm not a mind reader.
The most tactful thing I could say is, I don't think that you would appreciate anyone assuming what you mean whenever you make statements that can be interpreted 2 ways. It actually doesn't matter which way he meant to say it, because there is only one reasonable response to the situation in the first place. But, you are dancing around that fact. Why were these photos of an underage girl hosted on a porn site? Even if the photos weren't porn as shot, putting them into such a context could constitute making them into child porn.
Model
Fifi
Posts: 58134
Gainesville, Florida, US
MisterC wrote:
That doesn't mean they passed around child porn. They didn't need kiddie porn, because it was perfectly acceptable to bang a 12 year old.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Fifi wrote:
Maybe I'm jaded, but I am not seeing why you're using the word "strong" in reference to those images.
Nowadays, it probably wouldn't fly with all the pc bullshit floating around... but, if it's appropriate to the story and not presenting the child in an overly sexual manner, I have no problems with child nudity. Societies issue is now, all nudity is sexual. I don't have a problem with child nudity in general (I used to belong to a nudist resort).
However, IMHO, this is a pretty sexually charged photo to be taking of a 12-year old:
[edit: I've removed this link as the pic is NOT from the movie]
I imagine a few people would agree with me.
Model
Fifi
Posts: 58134
Gainesville, Florida, US
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Fifi wrote:
Ok, what about it makes is so sexually charged? ...so you don't think her pose, her expression and the atmosphere of this pic has a decided "seduction" look to it?
Model
Fifi
Posts: 58134
Gainesville, Florida, US
Gary Melton wrote:
...so you don't think her pose, her expression and the atmosphere of this pic has a decided "seduction" look to it? Actually no... her pose doesn't scream sex to me. It screams I'm a 12 year old girl standing here naked. Her expression says the same. The environment is a bit questionable, but it doesn't make me automatically think it's a sexy nude scene.
Model
Bon voyage
Posts: 20302
Los Angeles, California, US
Gary Melton wrote:
...so you don't think her pose, her expression and the atmosphere of this pic has a decided "seduction" look to it? Fifi wrote:
Actually no... her pose doesn't scream sex to me. It screams I'm a 12 year old girl standing here naked. Her expression says the same. The environment is a bit questionable, but it doesn't make me automatically think it's a sexy nude scene. Aside from the hair and make-up, she doesn't have a womanly figure yet. She's hiding her crotch, so all you're really seeing are a partial side view of her hip and a chest that's not developed yet and looks no different than a boy the same age would. I'm failing to see how this can be seen as sexual or seductive.
Photographer
Stephen Dawson
Posts: 29259
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gary Melton wrote:
IMHO, this is a pretty sexually charged photo to be taking of a 12-year old:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/264 … f3fc_o.jpg
I imagine a few people would agree with me. Fifi wrote:
Ok, what about it makes is so sexually charged? The poster's dirty mind?
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15162
Portland, Oregon, US
Ninja wrote:
I'm failing to see how this can be seen as sexual or seductive. I agree that it's intention is not sexual.
And if someone can find it sexual, well, that's there problem.
However, there are loads of people with "that" problem. I may not find it seductive, but I wouldn't want my 12 year old daughter to pose for similar pics.
Model
Fifi
Posts: 58134
Gainesville, Florida, US
MisterC wrote:
I agree that it's intention is not sexual.
And if someone can find it sexual, well, that's there problem.
However, there are loads of people with "that" problem. I may not find it seductive, but I wouldn't want my 12 year old daughter to pose for similar pics. Not to be crass, but those same people would find your daughter sexually arousing regardless if she was clothed or not.
Model
Bon voyage
Posts: 20302
Los Angeles, California, US
MisterC wrote:
I agree that it's intention is not sexual.
And if someone can find it sexual, well, that's there problem.
However, there are loads of people with "that" problem. I may not find it seductive, but I wouldn't want my 12 year old daughter to pose for similar pics. But if it were your daughter, then it obviously wouldn't happen. Minors need their parents to give the ok and signature before these things can be done/released, and someone earlier in the thread already stated that her mom was there the entire time.
You may not be ok with your daughter doing this, but Brooke's mom apparently was.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Imagebuffet wrote:
It actually doesn't matter which way he meant to say it, because there is only one reasonable response to the situation in the first place. But, you are dancing around that fact. Why were these photos of an underage girl hosted on a porn site? Even if the photos weren't porn as shot, putting them into such a context could constitute making them into child porn. Again - it's YOUR OPINION that there is only one reasonable response to the situation. I have absolutely seen people in the MM forums who would say something like: "Those pics are ridiculously soft core...why would such soft core pics be on a porn site?!" [And there were no clues as to where this person stood on the topic.]
In saying that - I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone - merely explaining that there are absolutely 2 ways to interpret his statement...and I chose not to just assume one or the other. That is why I asked him which way he meant it.
Look at my OP and tell me how you could interpret from it how I'm all for pics of 12-year old girls being on porn sites? I'm not. My question was how did this exception happen (that these "provocative" nude pics of this 12-year old girl are routinely seen on the internet and elsewhere...yet any other similar pics cause all kinds of commotion.
I'm just curious as to how this particular phenomenon came about and thought I'd open it for discussion to see what people thought. I'm sorry that it seems to be such a problem for you that I honestly thought that what someone said could be interpreted 2 ways...and instead of just assuming what he meant...I asked him.
What about that makes me...I don't know...what are you implying - that I'm stupid, that I should have been able to read his mind - maybe shame on me for not simply assuming what he meant?
It never ceases to amaze me how some people on the forums will latch on to a few words someone says - then act like they know better what the person meant than the person who said it.
Relax - I wasn't trying to insult anyone...just trying to do the right thing by not assuming...
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Well, I said it in my OP - I KNOW I'm going to SO regret starting this thread... Everyone was very cool and just stuck to the topic last night - no personal attacks...no trying to twist anyone's words. I came real close to making a post saying something like - "congratulations - I'm so proud of the MM community for making my fears unfounded about starting this thread...maybe people can just discuss the topic without personal attacks, etc." But today seems to be a whole 'nother story. One person seems to think I must be a moron because I didn't interpret a remark someone else made the same way that he did - how dare I have the NERVE to ask the person what he meant instead of just guessing at his meaning?! Another poster says I have a "dirty mind" because IMHO, I think a particular photo seems a bit provocative for a 12-year old girl to pose for. Seriously - those of you who think the photo is okay...you'd let YOUR 12-year old daughter pose for a pic like that? Hey - it's okay...we don't have to all have the same tastes or beliefs, etc. But can't we just discuss a topic without personal attacks? Thanks! 
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25784
Newark, California, US
Gary Melton wrote:
Another poster says I have a "dirty mind" because IMHO, I think a particular photo seems a bit provocative for a 12-year old girl to pose for. Seriously - those of you who think the photo is okay...you'd let YOUR 12-year old daughter pose for a pic like that? Whether someone thinks it's ok or not, is a matter of the mind.
One may think the image innocent, while never contemplating shoot such with their own children. No false dichotomy.
People are different.
Many people like those crazy rides at amusement parks.
I like them too.
I enjoy watching the people on them.
I enjoy that my friends and family can enjoy them.
Does it mean I'm getting on one?
Hell no.
Does it mean I would put a small child of mine that I am responsible for on one?
Hell no.
Does this mean that the parents who do are irresponsible? Not necessarily.
Just different.
Model
Kirstie Logan
Posts: 7
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
It's disgusting, exploitation of the vulnerable. At 12, a child is a child. Impressionable springs to mind.
Model
Kirstie Logan
Posts: 7
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
And anybody who thinks it is okay for a twelve year old girl to be seen in this way needs to be shot. End of.
Model
Kirstie Logan
Posts: 7
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
SKPhoto wrote:
Whether someone thinks it's ok or not, is a matter of the mind.
One may think the image innocent, while never contemplating shoot such with their own children. No false dichotomy.
People are different.
Many people like those crazy rides at amusement parks.
I like them too.
I enjoy watching the people on them.
I enjoy that my friends and family can enjoy them.
Does it mean I'm getting on one?
Hell no.
Does it mean I would put a small child of mine that I am responsible for on one?
Hell no.
Does this mean that the parents who do are irresponsible? Not necessarily.
Just different. what planet are you from love
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25784
Newark, California, US
Kirstie Logan wrote:
what planet are you from love Planet Christian Conservative USA.
A planet with a Constitution that is supposed to keep the government and other people out of my business, and me out of other peoples.
Do I think her mom was a psycho? Yep.
Do I think her mom was raising her poorly? Yep.
Do I think Brooke is messed up today because of it. Yep, and so much more.
Do I think her mother committed a crime? Only in an "pageant mom" kind of crime.
Is it any of my business? Nope.
Should it be a crime? That kind of thinking is why normal everyday parents get arrested and visited by child services because the photo tech at Walmart called the police because they took a picture of their baby in a bath. Who draws the line? Who decided where the line with be? As evidenced here by range between those who think it is porn, to those who think nothing of it.
Three things must be taken into account.
First, ever since the invention of art, nudity has gone in cycles where it is in and out of fashion, indeed nudity of children was routinely used in portraying innocence, immortality, and the elemental nature of our own human psyche.
Second, while some here deride religion as the reason nudity is seen as bad and dirty, I say it is liberalism that is to blame with it's overwhelming need to control everyone's life to the smallest detail. Such that nudity becomes a commodity that must be controlled by the government. If they lack control, it is bad and dirty, thus implementing such control as they can.
Third, the image in the OP, is not the image as it was originally taken. Having seen the set that these were taken from, this image has been doctored from just a young girl in a bath. An air of sultriness, steaminess, has been added that was not in the original. It's more a painting from someone's mind than a photograph.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Fifi wrote:
You too!
Hell to the yeah baby... have you seen that cake show??? We are talking pants around the ankles..
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Fifi wrote:
They didn't need kiddie porn, because it was perfectly acceptable to bang a 12 year old. Just look at how the "acceptability" of it has changed in the last 30yrs.. and correct me if I'm wrong, but on Little House on the Prairie, didnt like a 30yr old man "court" half pint when she was about 12 or 13 in the story? And I dont remember an uproar of outrage about that wholesome show.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
*** interesting update ***
I had forgotten that I had the movie on DVD (hadn't watched it in a long time). I fired it up and fast forwarded to the nude scenes of Brooke to refresh my memory of exactly what was in the movie...and here was what I discovered:
1) Brooke is nude on screen for more total time than I remembered.
2) Her nude scenes were all much more innocent and less explicit than I had remembered. The nude scene in the bath does not appear to even be in the movie (so I'm going to remove that link since it actually has nothing to do with the topic). While there are 3 or 4 sequences in the movie where Brooke is in the bathtub - I didn't see a single frame that really resembled that photo that I thought was on the provocative side.
3) The most provocative image of her in the movie, the "signature" image that I remembered (but couldn't really find a link to on the internet - her lying on her side facing the camera) - was not nearly as provocative as I remembered.
So overall now - I would have to say that while the movie still probably contains the most graphic photos of a nude 12 year girl (for a commercial, widely distributed movie)...the pics are really a lot tamer than I remembered.
...........................
On the other hand...I really had forgotten how incredibly and awesomely gorgeous Susan Sarandon was at that time...and there are LOTS of lovely nude scenes of her!
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25784
Newark, California, US
CGI Images wrote:
Not to mention when Brooke did pretty baby she was not a "nude" newbie, the more controversial ones were an actual photo shoot when she was 10 I believe.
http://celebgossipandrumors.wordpress.c … xhibition/ And has been doctored by artist by Richard Price.
The linked photo is not the original.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Kirstie Logan wrote:
what planet are you from love SKPhoto wrote:
Planet Christian Conservative USA.
A planet with a Constitution that is supposed to keep the government and other people out of my business, and me out of other peoples. Amen,
SKPhoto wrote:
Second, while some here deride religion as the reason nudity is seen as bad and dirty, I say it is liberalism that is to blame with it's overwhelming need to control everyone's life to the smallest detail. Such that nudity becomes a commodity that must be controlled by the government. If they lack control, it is bad and dirty, thus implementing such control as they can. But isnt this really the exact reason religion developed the same rules.. control over the masses, the only difference is when modern religions sprung up they were the big "governments" of the time. Still in my opinion the same goal of creating "rules" for control on both counts.
I like you more and more by the way.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
SKPhoto wrote:
And has been doctored by artist by Richard Price.
The linked photo is not the original. I didnt know that.. learn something new everyday around here, non the less, I personally dont have a problem with the image either way. I was just pointing out that pretty baby wasnt her first "nude" work, in case someone hadnt already.
Photographer
Jeffrey McAlister
Posts: 1882
Boston, Massachusetts, US
That movie raised a pretty huge outcry over exploitation of a minor... but you're right... someone would have paid more dearly today. Frankly my favorite nude images in that film are of Susan Sarandon's historically majestic rack when she was a quite a young woman, playing shields mom.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Jeffrey McAlister wrote:
...my favorite nude images in that film are of Susan Sarandon...when she was a quite a young woman, playing shields mom. Yes. IMHO - Susan Sarandon was one of the most beautiful women anywhere about that time.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Gary Melton wrote:
Yes. IMHO - Susan Sarandon was one of the most beautiful women anywhere about that time. I'm going to have to check it out again, I didnt even realize she was in that movie...
Model
Amelia Glass
Posts: 839
Los Angeles, California, US
DeniseRegan Photography wrote:
Jodie Foster had a nude scene in a movie when she was 13...can't remember if it was "Taxi Driver" or "The Little Girl who Lives Down the Lane". I dunno...maybe things were different then. It was Little Girl, she was just a hooker in Taxi Driver.
Makeup Artist
Angela Sawyer
Posts: 378
Apple Valley, California, US
Gary Melton wrote:
I'm not sure if you mean they are too strong or too weak, but my point is...how did THIS movie, with THIS 12 year old girl...become the exception?
Posting nude pics of any other 12 year old girl would get a person in a lot of trouble...but somehow - the pics of THIS girl from THIS movie has gotten a pass.
I'm just curious as to how that happened... we can all make guesses but who here really can answer that with fact?
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
Imagebuffet wrote:
It actually doesn't matter which way he meant to say it, because there is only one reasonable response to the situation in the first place. But, you are dancing around that fact. Why were these photos of an underage girl hosted on a porn site? Even if the photos weren't porn as shot, putting them into such a context could constitute making them into child porn. Gary Melton wrote:
Again - it's YOUR OPINION that there is only one reasonable response to the situation. Nude photos of a little girl are displayed on an erotic photo website. Yeah, I'm pretty certain that it isn't just my opinion that this is immoral and illegal.
Gary Melton wrote:
I have absolutely seen people in the MM forums who would say something like: "Those pics are ridiculously soft core...why would such soft core pics be on a porn site?!" [And there were no clues as to where this person stood on the topic.] It doesn't matter to the law how soft core the photos are. The fact that a pornographer is peddling those photos on a porn site makes them licentious in that context. The photos could be non-pornographic in other contexts, but the fact that a porn website is displaying them demonstrates a licentious intent.
Gary Melton wrote:
In saying that - I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone - merely explaining that there are absolutely 2 ways to interpret his statement... That is irrelevant, a red herring.
Gary Melton wrote:
and I chose not to just assume one or the other. That is also irrelevant, a red herring.
Gary Melton wrote:
That is why I asked him which way he meant it. As I stated, already, it doesn't matter which way he meant it. It is the fact of the matter by itself that is important. The fact of the matter is that a pornographic website is displaying photos of a naked little girl. That puts those photos in the context of pornography, making them child porn.
Gary Melton wrote:
Look at my OP and tell me how you could interpret from it how I'm all for pics of 12-year old girls being on porn sites? Irrelevant.
Gary Melton wrote:
I'm not. Irrelevant.
Gary Melton wrote:
My question was how did this exception happen (that these "provocative" nude pics of this 12-year old girl are routinely seen on the internet and elsewhere...yet any other similar pics cause all kinds of commotion. Unfortunately, your question is overshadowed by a different issue, now.
Gary Melton wrote:
I'm just curious as to how this particular phenomenon came about and thought I'd open it for discussion to see what people thought. I suspect that you are not being entirely candid in this statement. I would have that suspicion from the OP, but the fact that you sourced a photo of a naked little girl from a porn site adds to my suspicion.
Gary Melton wrote:
I'm sorry that it seems to be such a problem for you that I honestly thought that what someone said could be interpreted 2 ways...and instead of just assuming what he meant...I asked him. You are trying to follow a red herring.
Gary Melton wrote:
What about that makes me...I don't know...what are you implying - that I'm stupid, that I should have been able to read his mind - maybe shame on me for not simply assuming what he meant? No; if you are unable to see the problem with a porn site publishing photos of a naked little girl, then your moral and legal compass is broken.
Model
Courtney Cohn
Posts: 120
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
I have a lot of nude photos/videos when I was younger that my parents took of me- they can whip those one's out at my 21st birthday, I wouldn't care less. All of those videos and photos are obviously innocent in intent, but when I was younger, would I want those photos being shown to the public, even for the sake of art? No. I know for a fact my parents would agree with me.
I think while the nudity was never supposed to be arousing, I don't think, even in the name of art, that was a good idea, at her age, for her or her mother to agree to. Not when it's being shown on such a wide scale. It just opens the flood gates to all kinds of creeps and their sexual urges.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Gary Melton wrote:
What about that makes me...I don't know...what are you implying - that I'm stupid, that I should have been able to read his mind - maybe shame on me for not simply assuming what he meant? Imagebuffet wrote:
No; if you are unable to see the problem with a porn site publishing photos of a naked little girl, then your moral and legal compass is broken. I honestly don't understand what your problem is - someone made a comment that IMO, could be interpreted 2 ways. Instead of assuming one way or the other - I asked the person what they meant (by saying "I'm not sure if you mean they are too strong or too weak").
Somehow, you're trying to turn me saying ""I'm not sure if you mean they are too strong or too weak" into a whole other issue. There was no hidden meaning or agenda - I honestly didn't know which way he meant it. I was NOT commenting on whether it was right or wrong, moral or not. I honestly didn't know what he meant.
At any rate - I'm tired of defending myself for something that you're imagining I meant by "I'm not sure if you mean they are too strong or too weak". I simply wasn't sure which way he meant it. END of story.
If you still feel like there was some deep, unspoken, secret underlying meaning to my simple statement...then I can't help that. I WILL NOT be responding to this issue anymore. I know what I said and what I meant.
Model
Fifi
Posts: 58134
Gainesville, Florida, US
Kirstie Logan wrote:
And anybody who thinks it is okay for a twelve year old girl to be seen in this way needs to be shot. End of. -sigh-
Model
-Nicole-
Posts: 19211
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Kirstie Logan wrote:
And anybody who thinks it is okay for a twelve year old girl to be seen in this way needs to be shot. End of. Seen what way?
Some people think "it's just a nude kid", others think "sexual" thoughts.
So, which way do you think?
Photographer
MF productions
Posts: 2064
San Jose, California, US
Gary Melton wrote:
Jodie Foster's nudity in "Taxi Driver" were beyond most for her age...but nothing compared to Brooke Shield's in "Pretty Baby". Jodi Foster was not nude in Taxi Driver .
Makeup Artist
MUA Amy Elizabeth
Posts: 4985
Miami, Florida, US
Ninja wrote:
Gary Melton wrote:
...so you don't think her pose, her expression and the atmosphere of this pic has a decided "seduction" look to it? Aside from the hair and make-up, she doesn't have a womanly figure yet. She's hiding her crotch, so all you're really seeing are a partial side view of her hip and a chest that's not developed yet and looks no different than a boy the same age would. I'm failing to see how this can be seen as sexual or seductive. ... oh.
Model
Bon voyage
Posts: 20302
Los Angeles, California, US
MUA Amy Elizabeth wrote:
... oh. Sorry I'm not a pervert, I guess.
|
