Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
Those were different pictures, girls didn't have caked on make up, and posing in bathtubs and showers. They had fabrics.
I don't know how to explain it other than the feel of the photo.. it was a different style. I have no problems with David Hamilton's Photos.. I do find the "Pretty Baby" photos could belong in playboy, just add 6 years and those images would have fit nicely in the magazine.
Most of them had a feel to a photo, used fabric Any photo of young girls are a turn-on for some people!
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
They were different times. I remember when the Pedophile Information Exchange was a legit organization in the uk and used to leave leaflets and run walk in groups.
In the 1970's a lot of alternative forms of sexuality were fighting for aceptance - Gays, S&M and Pedophiles all trying for a plac ein society.
Thank goodness sence and humanity for the most part prevailed and the Gays (LGBT to be inclusive) got acceptance while the child sex advocates didn't. The jury is still out on the consensual S&M crowd sadly (and I support them - sadly society doesn't seem to).
But they were very different times when this movie was released.
Photographer
Wysiwyg Photography
Posts: 6326
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Any photo of young girls are a turn-on for some people! That is true, There is a fetish for everything out there.
Even non-nude fetishes out there, and you could take a picture of a 14yo girl on a flowing sun dress on a swing and have some guy look at that picture sexually.
There is no way to get away from it, nudity does not have to be used to make a picture sexual to someone.
Even look at Disney... How many Teen boys look at Miley Cirus and think dirty thoughts (I'm sure even adult men too)
Point being, There are a lot of "Spank Bank" material out there than is Non-Nude too..
Photographer
Stephen Dawson
Posts: 29259
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
1978 predates the rise of right wing nutism in the US.
The US had a better understanding of priorities. And open porn was still new enough that it was attacked in general, and not on its most vulnerable flanks.
A major movie directed by a well known individual would be controversial but not subject to criminal charges.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
...Point being, There are a lot of "Spank Bank" material out there than is Non-Nude too.. I've actually always maintained that nuditiy has little to do with "spank bank" material.
I've always felt that the nude form is all about beauty. Sexuality in images is more closely related to "provocativeness" and can be non-nude as easily as nude (actually, I believe it can be MORE easily non-nude).
Wardrobe Stylist
aiseirigh
Posts: 566
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
because today, politicians, legislators and law enforcement cant do anything to solve real crime.
today its easier to make criminals of law abiding citizens and give the impression you are fighting crime. nobody sees the convictions, because there aren't any...they only see the headlines "Child porn producer arrested"....
but these people can your money on chasing these "criminals" because they are "doing it for the children". wait, are you saying that child porn is not real crime?
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Stephen Dawson wrote:
1978 predates the rise of right wing nutism in the US.
The US had a better understanding of priorities. And open porn was still new enough that it was attacked in general, and not on its most vulnerable flanks.
A major movie directed by a well known individual would be controversial but not subject to criminal charges. Kinda like Harry Reems and Deep Throat understanding in Memphis TN in 1976....where no one in the movie, manufacture of, producer, etc. had any tie whatsoever to Memphis?
Other than Memphis was the fooken bible belt capital at the time, and the feds knew they could probably get a conviction down there.
They did.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
aiseirigh wrote:
wait, are you saying that child porn is not real crime? No he is not....read it again. I know exactly what he is saying.
If your looking to kick dirt, you're in the wrong spot.
Photographer
Wysiwyg Photography
Posts: 6326
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Gary Melton wrote:
I've actually always maintained that nuditiy has little to do with "spank bank" material.
I've always felt that the nude form is all about beauty. Sexuality in images is more closely related to "provocativeness" and can be non-nude as easily as nude (actually, I believe it can be MORE easily non-nude). 100%
But yeah. I get your point.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Cherrystone wrote:
Kinda like Harry Reems and Deep Throat understanding in Memphis TN in 1976....where no one in the movie, manufacture of, producer, etc. had any tie whatsoever to Memphis?
Other than Memphis was the fooken bible belt capital at the time, and the feds knew they could probably get a conviction down there.
They did. ...mother fookers...
Photographer
BrooklynHill
Posts: 4790
Newport Beach, California, US
100 years ago, 12 years old was legal marrying age...true story :p
Photographer
David Westlake
Posts: 1539
Mansfield Center, Connecticut, US
Stephen Dawson wrote:
1978 predates the rise of right wing nutism in the US.
The US had a better understanding of priorities. And open porn was still new enough that it was attacked in general, and not on its most vulnerable flanks.
A major movie directed by a well known individual would be controversial but not subject to criminal charges. True. The Meese commission during the Regan administration was the start of a lot of paranoia and witch hunts. The 80s had a lot of cases where day care providers were accused of holding satanic rituals and abusing children. The "experts" who asked toddlers leading questions until the kids said what they wanted to hear were looking for witches. There were stories of the kids being taken through tunnels to underground rooms where devil worshipers abused them and airplane trips to other cities for abuse. No physical evidence was ever found but there were quite a few convictions based on really outlandish stories.
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25784
Newark, California, US
Stephen Dawson wrote:
1978 predates the rise of right wing nutism in the US.
The US had a better understanding of priorities. And open porn was still new enough that it was attacked in general, and not on its most vulnerable flanks.
A major movie directed by a well known individual would be controversial but not subject to criminal charges. 1978 predates the rise of right wing nutism left wing political correctness/social hysteria in the US.
There, fixed that for ya.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
SKPhoto wrote:
There, fixed that for ya. If by 'fixed' you mean 'neutered'
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
SKPhoto wrote:
1978 predates the rise of right wing nutism left wing political correctness/social hysteria in the US.
There, fixed that for ya. Sorry SK, it's the Right that preaches morality, yet rarely follows it..
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25784
Newark, California, US
Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
Sorry SK, it's the Right that preaches morality, yet rarely follows it.. Keep drinking the KoolAid.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
because today, politicians, legislators and law enforcement cant do anything to solve real crime.
today its easier to make criminals of law abiding citizens and give the impression you are fighting crime. nobody sees the convictions, because there aren't any...they only see the headlines "Child porn producer arrested"....
but these people can your money on chasing these "criminals" because they are "doing it for the children". aiseirigh wrote:
wait, are you saying that child porn is not real crime? child porn is a crime when it's child porn...ie: images of children engaged in sexual activity, implied sexual activity or lascivious displays of genitalia.
but when someone is arrested for having perfectly legal images and by virtue of arresting them for child porn, makes it look like crime fighting....well thats fucked up...
Photographer
A_Nova_Photography
Posts: 8652
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, US
SKPhoto wrote:
1978 predates the rise of right wing nutism left wing political correctness/social hysteria in the US.
There, fixed that for ya. Since the right wing doesn't exist in NYC what's the deal here??? Plenty of liberal democrats who would like to define everything as porn... I've had very liberal people call my glamor and nudes porn, this is in NYC, not the bible belt...
Funny, but it seems like the more liberal we get, the more puritanical we get... There's weren't this many laws 30 years ago...
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
ACPhotography wrote:
Since the right wing doesn't exist in NYC what's the deal here??? Plenty of liberal democrats who would like to define everything as porn... I've had very liberal people call my glamor and nudes porn, this is in NYC, not the bible belt...
Funny, but it seems like the more liberal we get, the more puritanical we get... There's weren't this many laws 30 years ago... the liberals are ok with nudity, its the conservatives that have the problem...
Model
S. Stark
Posts: 13614
Los Angeles, California, US
I have a print of her at age 9 or so in my living room; she's wearing a teddy and ruffled underwear.
found it in a vintage store, bought it for $2.
it makes people uncomfortable, and I love it.
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25784
Newark, California, US
ACPhotography wrote:
Since the right wing doesn't exist in NYC what's the deal here??? Plenty of liberal democrats who would like to define everything as porn... I've had very liberal people call my glamor and nudes porn, this is in NYC, not the bible belt...
Funny, but it seems like the more liberal we get, the more puritanical we get... There's weren't this many laws 30 years ago... S W I N S K E Y wrote:
the liberals are ok with nudity, its the conservatives that have the problem... You're mistaken.
I've had more liberals in California offended by nudes then I ever did back in the rural Midwest.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Any photo of young girls are a turn-on for some people! Many people are turned on by pictures of feet too, personally the food channel gets me going at times....
I really don't care what turns people on, I care how they behave.
Photographer
Bob Bentley Photography
Posts: 15141
Westcliffe, Colorado, US
A nude body at any age can be interesting. What was, what is, what will be or what should have been, what is, and what might be if only.
I think many in our society are o.k. with the nude body being photographed at any age, however, they feel if they keep a tight rein on restrictions it keeps such matters from getting out of control.
Photographer
Wysiwyg Photography
Posts: 6326
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
because today, politicians, legislators and law enforcement cant do anything to solve real crime.
today its easier to make criminals of law abiding citizens and give the impression you are fighting crime. nobody sees the convictions, because there aren't any...they only see the headlines "Child porn producer arrested"....
but these people can your money on chasing these "criminals" because they are "doing it for the children". child porn is a crime when it's child porn...ie: images of children engaged in sexual activity, implied sexual activity or lascivious displays of genitalia.
but when someone is arrested for having perfectly legal images and by virtue of arresting them for child porn, makes it look like crime fighting....well thats fucked up... If I had could give you rep points in this forum, I would give you a million rep points for that statement! Nicely said.
Wardrobe Stylist
Dave the design student
Posts: 45198
Detroit, Michigan, US
BrooklynHill wrote:
100 years ago, 12 years old was legal marrying age...true story :p Why don't you have a seat over here.
Photographer
Justin
Posts: 22389
Fort Collins, Colorado, US
In the times of Bill Clinton and Larry Craig, Eliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford, we're arguing whether conservatives or liberals occupy the low moral ground on sex? Hm. What's slimier, a slug or an earthworm? Now, there's a debate.
We're in weirdly libertarian/Puritan times. Porn available at a mere click, but take a drunken piss on the landscaping, and risk having a lifetime sentence of registration as a sex offender. These are weird times, and I'm taking no chances. When I pick up my camera in a studio, anyone under 18 is off-limits there, regardless of clothing.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Justin wrote:
In the times of Bill Clinton and Larry Craig, Eliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford, we're arguing whether conservatives or liberals occupy the low moral ground on sex? Hm. What's slimier, a slug or an earthworm? Now, there's a debate.
We're in weirdly libertarian/Puritan times. Porn available at a mere click, but take a drunken piss on the landscaping, and risk having a lifetime sentence of registration as a sex offender. These are weird times, and I'm taking no chances. When I pick up my camera in a studio, anyone under 18 is off-limits there, regardless of clothing. ...slug (by far IMHO)...
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Gary Melton wrote:
"recontextualizing" = Pointing at a deer and calling it a horse
Studio36
Photographer
Alexis_Kennedy
Posts: 1308
Portland, Oregon, US
well keep in mind this was also the same decade when Deep Throat made millions of dollars playing in commercial run theaters, not just porn houses and home viewings.
Of course that was a major controversy at the time as well.
Bottom line, it seems to me that as time moves forward, sex becomes an easier and easier target for those looking for something to be shocked about. It's easy to make political and social hay out of sexual topics. Just look at Lady Gaga or the time Madonna kissed Britney Spears and the "outrage" exhibited by the talking heads on the news after the fact.
It's pretty sad really. I'd rather see people get angry about violence instead of sex but that's just me I guess.
Photographer
Amanda Jackson Photo
Posts: 619
Portland, Oregon, US
BrooklynHill wrote:
100 years ago, 12 years old was legal marrying age...true story :p because they lived to be 30
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
Amanda J Photography wrote:
because they lived to be 30 Seriously, that's only a small part of the reason, particularly as the life expectancy at age 10 in the U.S. in 1910 was about age 60.
In that era, women generally did not have independent careers. They were expected to become home-makers, mothers to children. Many people did not go to college, and women were less likely than men to go to college. Child labor was still common, in which children worked on farms, in factories and mines, doing the same work as adults.
Once a girl reaches puberty, it is the arbitrary decision of humans whether she is physically old enough for successful mating. In our current culture and society, we have decided that it is best to discourage mating before mid-teen years, generally no earlier than 16 to 18 years of age.
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
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, 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.
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
Jim Ball wrote:
IIRC, 1977 or 1978 was when some of the earliest child porn laws in the US were enacted. Prior to that, it was commonly available in practically any adult bookstore - at least around Southern California. I moved to San Diego in 1976. My first visit to an adult bookstore in San Diego was major culture shock! There were kiddie porn magazines by the dozen on the racks in plain sight, and kiddie porn films in the movie booths. I know I must have looked like a slack-jawed hick (I was!) as I slowly backed out the door...
I remember hearing several news stories about the new laws against kiddie porn, and the resulting crackdown on San Diego area adult bookstores. I believe you are correct, and have answered the OP's question.
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
Gary Melton wrote:
Were David Hamilton's photos as "provocative" as the ones of Brooke? I've seen only the sample images of young Brooke Shields that you have linked. However, I would say that David Hamilton is at least as provocative. It is my understanding that David Hamilton's books of this type are now banned--outlawed--in the UK, and that Mr. Hamilton has spoken at length about his own sexual fascination with underage girls and his attempts to depict underage girls sexually.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
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. 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.
Model
MissSybarite
Posts: 11863
Los Angeles, California, US
c_d_s wrote:
It wasn't really the exception. It was just a different time, a stark contrast to the times that utterly destroyed "Lolita" before it was even released, 18 years later. Damn good movie!!!
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. 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. The most tactful thing I could say is, I think it is obvious which way he meant it, and which way you should understand it even if he hadn't said it.
Photographer
Justin
Posts: 22389
Fort Collins, Colorado, US
Imagebuffet wrote:
....that Mr. Hamilton has spoken at length about his own sexual fascination with underage girls and his attempts to depict underage girls sexually. If so, I'm just shocked. Shocked.
Yeah. Sorry, but his stuff back then looked creepy to me. It was "cool" to a lot of people back then because it was "beautiful and daring," but to me it always looked like the main car coming out of Perv Central. I wouldn't have let him within 500 yards of my kids.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
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. Imagebuffet wrote:
The most tactful thing I could say is, I think it is obvious which way he meant it, and which way you should understand it even if he hadn't said it. 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.
Model
Fifi
Posts: 58134
Gainesville, Florida, US
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.
|
