My impression is that there is a great deal of divergence on this issue
between various nations, but that the threshold for declaring something
"indecent" or "pornographic" or whatever has been falling in general
throughout the West for several years, especially in the USA.
I think a key issue is whether there's reason to believe that a young
model has been exploited for prurient or sexual ends in the creation of
a photo or film. Thus, pictures that do NOT contain nudity, yet which
focus clearly upon a young person's genital areas for the obvious
purpose of sexual arousal, might be deemed pornographic. On the other
kind of "artistic" nudity often found in Johnie's scans -- will
probably not be considered obscene, except in theocratic or politically
regressive societies like Iran or Texas.
On 2007-08-15 12:02:34 -0400, HMS Victor Victorian
<VictorVictorianREMOVE@hushmail.com> said:
> The following collection posted by Johnie is tastefully and
> respectfully done, exhibitinng the contagious enthusiam of ideal
> boyhood. The subjects of this essay appear to having the very best
> time of it ... all smiles and sparkling eyes and gleaming, winsome
> smiles ...
>
> *Sigh*
>
> Where was I?
>
> Oh, yes. Nevertheless, the entire series is composed of nudes and a
> preponderance of the images have a distinctly sensual if not erotic
> nature to them. So be forewarned, if you are easily offended by
> youthful nudity. Such work demands the question, of course, as to
> what is artful portrayal of nudity and sensuality and what constitutes
> pornography. In addition, at what point are pornographic images, for
> example, in Britain, deemed illegal?
>
> As to the first question, I would state unequivocably that nude shots,
> taken expressedly for that purpose and with very few exceptions, are
> intended to evoke a sense of sensuality, or sexual stimulation in the
> mind of the viewer. If one defines pornography as imagery intended to
> evoke a sexual response, mental, physical or both, then the images in
> this display could be considered [and ARE considered such by most of
> our society's "moral guardians"] as pornographic.
>
> The definition as to what is permissable pornography and illegal
> pornography is determined by evaluating the age of the subjects and
> the nature and extent to which sexual arousal or sexual activity is
> depicted . As one American judge once so incisively pronounced, "I
> can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." Well! Indeed!
>
> I wonder what magazines he subscribed to? Probably none, but kept
> late hours in the evidence room, doubtlessly!
>
> At any rate, I digress. One must wonder when a particular complaint
> over potentially illegal pornographic images reached the court, how
> the court actually determines the legal status of the images in
> question. Certainly, it must scrutinize the images carefully, looking
> for signs of sexual arousal and ask themselves, "Does that young lad
> have a woody? Does that look like an erection to you, or is the boy's
> penis just short, stubby and merely poking out--that if he stood up,
> would it not fall back into place rather than remain poking out??? Is
> a partial hard-on legally impermissible, or does it have to be a full
> hard-on? What qualities comprise an erection, anyway? Does one have
> to observe bulging veins and a glans extending past the foreskin? Do
> both conditions have to exist to define it as an erection? What of
> the cases of circumcision, or at the very least lads who are clearly
> "foreskin challenged?" What if the boy is posed to appear to have a
> boner by standing on his head or doing a back bend? And if he does
> not truly have an erection, is the image illegal merely because the
> intent of the photographer was to make the boy appear to have one?
>
> Oh dear, oh dear. Such a quandry! What to do?
>
> Well, I suggest you dear patrons of the gallery examine the following
> images carefully--I believe there may be boy who possibly might have a
> borderline boner in among them--although the position of the leg makes
> it rather difficult to determine for certain--it certainly COULD be
> ...
>
> I shall leave it to your discerning examination, then.
>
> Oh, and thank you once more, Johnie.
>
> VV
>
> God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
> God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
> Rule Britannia!
|
|