Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
I wouldn't say any other situation is not okay...perhaps there is artistic merit in photographing nude people, even children. There is certainly scientific merit in the context of studying young children for diseases, cancer, and things of that nature.
My point of bringing up the subject of context was that regardless of whose children they are, a lot of people might deem the pictures pornographic. Especially in our strange Western society where nudity is not viewed as a natural state but rather a sexualized and dirty state.
On the topic of taking non-artistic pictures of your kids naked:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-co...ory?id=8624533
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/pa...ory?id=8622696
The knee-jerk reaction is in example of western culture failure.
We probably need a working definition of pornography in this thread, and that is just as hard as defining art. |
I think the main thing that makes it porn is this:
Why do you have it?
If you have it to show family members - not porn.
If you have it for medical advancement/research - not porn.
If you have it as art (obviously not talking of nude children, that would be creepy art) - not porn.
If you have it to jerk off to - porn.