all pics of adolescents should be banned for distributing due to increasing number of sexual predators at large

And why not. After all, the Cambodian Prime Minister's solution to his nephews firing handguns in karaoke parlours was to close the karaoke parlours...

Um, I'm no artist, in fact I failed every art class I was forced to take.(School requirements) but dang.

Look at a museum. You'll see nude children in paintings, sculptures, so forth. I guess Leo and Raphael and so forth were pervert pedos huh?

Anyways, I say if its art its art. Whether its nude teens or a sculpture made from Cheerios.(Heard of this, never saw it, and they used all kinds of cereal not just Cheerios)

Would I consider Cheerios made to look like say, The Virgin Mary art? Not really. More like a Catholic Summer Camp craft. But people who do it say it is and again I failed art.

Also, nudity is not sexual.

As been stated by several people pictures of babies in the bath tub or whatever. Or hell, watch America's Funniest Home Videos. A lot of them are naked babies in the tub or other place doing something funny. I guess AFHV and Bob Saget are pedos.

All you prudes need to realize Adam and Eve were naked. Was it evil, naughty, hell fire and brimstone? No, they were just naked. Unless you believe Adam and Eve are going to hell for being naked...

So you are saying that child pornography did not exist before the invention of cameras? Just because naked children are in a painting, does not mean some pervert was not getting off on it. I do not believe in "artistic" nudes of children under 18. I was really taken aback by the member who called a thirteen year old a young adult. That is exactly what perverts tell themselves. It is what the organization called the National Man Boy Love Association tells it's members. We need to protect children from exploitation by people who have no problem manipulating them for profit, as well as sexual gratification. "Artistic" photographers included.

reply to post by groingrinder

---

Absolutely we need to protect children from exploitation.

We also need to protect artists from intimidation.

One poster may have described thirteen-year olds as young adults, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the piece you quoted. Some societies do class thirteen as adulthood. But those tend to be the same societies where 25 is already passed middle-aged.

When I was thirteen I was already deluding myself with the thought that I was approaching maturity. Teenagers usually do classify themselves as being more mature than adults give them credit for.

As for NAMBLA, yeah, I agree. They are a bunch of sick deleted-expletives who will use any and all possible arguments to justify what they do. But their use of an argument to justify something shouldn't lead to the knee-jerk response of banning everything that could possibly be tarred with the same brush.

Mr Snuffleuppicus was "outed" because some "well-meaning" and "responsible" "community leaders" thought an imaginary character on Sesame Street promoted behaviour that paedophiles could use to influence their victims to actively hide the crime on their behalf.

The fact is that people's reactions to art (or films, books etc) is always, for better or worse, a reflection on themselves and their attitudes.

As it happens, this particular episode is not exactly a new phenomenon in Australia.

Adrian Lynne's adaptation of Lolita was banned by various state Ministers for Culture without them ever having viewed the filmv in question. Which isn't just ignorant, it's active stupidity of a rather spectacular and self-evident kind.

But then, ignorance and government position go hand in hand.