In alt.fan.frank.mccoy Baal <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA512
>
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:49:40 -0500, in Message-ID:
><3j15i21190blrvkoeb04gk3hljbrru4bn4@4ax.com>, Frank McCoy
><mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote:
>
>> In alt.fan.frank.mccoy "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole111@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Idiot. I *said*, "With parental permission"; and there wouldn't be anything
>> obscene in the picture, except perhaps in *your* sick little mind.
>>
>> Only anti-sex perverts like you would find mere nudity to be obscene.
>
>The only problem with this scenario, Frank, is precisely that the
>authorities tend to view even mere nudity as obscene. Their predilection
>all-too-frequently is to prosecute any such cases.
>
>Remember the Salon article that was posted within the last few months?
>Two families got literally put through hell because of a few nude photos
>of their offspring on a camping trip.
>
>Even well-regarded artists and photographers such as Jock Sturges and
>Sally Mann have been persecuted; in Sturges' case, his studio was raided,
>his equipment, prints and negatives seized. He was hauled before a
>Grand Jury, which refused to indict him, even though the authorities
>tried to paint him as a child pornographer; the FBI even sent agents over
>to France and harassed those who modeled for him.
>
>The U.S. government spent in excess of one million dollars going after
>Sturges, who spent in excess of $100,000 U.S. to defend himself.
>
>Even today, he says that the memory of what he went through has cast a
>shadow over his work--he always has the thought in the back of his mind.
>
>
> Metro: Having been through all that you've been
> through, I can't imagine how you can take photographs
> now without having legal concerns somewhere in your
> mind.
>
> Sturges: There are photographs that I don't take now
> that I previously would have taken without any thought
> at all as to any misinterpretations. The truth is that
> people who are naturists, who are used to being without
> clothes, are unself-conscious about how they sit
> around, how they throw themselves down on the ground,
> how they sit in a chair, how they stand. They don't
> think about it; it's not an issue. There's nothing
> obscene about them. Before, I'd photograph anything. I
> didn't think there was anything more or less obscene
> about any part of the body. Now, I recognize that
> there are certain postures and angles that make
> people see red, which are evidence of original sin or
> something, and I avoid that. I don't shoot that any
> more. But it's difficult. At one point, [my wife] Maia
> found me crossing legs, or avoiding angles, or giving
> instructions which inadvertently were instructing
> young people that some aspect of what they were doing
> was inherently profane, some aspect of who they were
> inherently were profane. I've had to relearn how I work
> with people so that if and when I do avoid different
> things I don't send any messages in doing so. I'm the
> last person who has any desire to instruct anybody in
> shame. That's no errand for me.
>
>http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html
>
>This really is an excellent interview--I highly recommend that you read
>the entire thing.
>
>Sally Mann photographed her own children; if memory serves, the authorities
>threatened to take them away from her for that. She no longer does nude
>photography--all she photographs these days are landscapes.
>
Well, like I said in the header of original post (which B&C deliberately cut
only part of) "If it only wasn't illegal"
And also: They'd assume "prurient interest" on my part for the picture, when
in-fact that wouldn't be the case ... the *caption* would be.
So I never would.
It just seems like a damned cute pun, that's kept from being appreciated by the
prurient interests of the censors themselves.
If THEY see sex in a picture (and they see sex in about everything) then it must
be nasty, evil, and horrible for the kids ... no matter how much the kids are
actually having fun and enjoying themselves.
There's also this horribly mistaken idea (probably gotten from "Peter Pan") that
kids are so terribly innocent, especially about sex.
If you ever put a long mike on kids playing at school ....
I remember well the conversations kids had when I was in school ... and not just
one school either. Of course, they never let their *parents* know they were
talking or even thinking about such things. They knew what punishment would
await if they did. Thus the image of "innocence" keeps on being perpetuated by
the very parents who ensure they *don't* learn how truly un-innocent their kids
really are. Circular feedback. By ensuring the kids *don't* talk about sex, by
punishing them for any slightest hint or sexual word, they ass-u-me that the
kids therefor know nothing about it; when in fact they often know more than the
parents ... indeed knowing enough to hide that knowledge from those same
parents.
Of course, not ALL parents are that restrictive or that dumb. But it's the ones
thinking sex=evil that restrict their own knowledge, both about sex AND about
their own children. Even having been children doing the same thing themselves;
which makes it *really* stupid!
OK ... The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
|