I only add this
In that Tichy thread people were quick to point out how perverted he must be/is/they believe him to be
Yet
to many
Taking photographs of obviously nude little children is nothing short of art
that's really strange
I don't think it's strange - the children were being photographed *at the request of and under the supervision of their parents*, and nowhere does it say they were nude, but rather only topless. The ultimate objective here, as all the articles state, was to digitally manipulate the resulting photos to turn them into representations of mythical fairies. Sure sounds like art to me (even if I wouldn't have it done to any of my future offspring, or particularly like fairies, but that's a different argument).
Tichy, on the other hand, was taking candid photos of women. A *lot* of them. Some of them visibly through fences, all of them (it appears) without their knowledge (otherwise they wouldn't be candid). We've already had a discussion on whether this is creepy or not, but I really don't see how Tichy compares in any way to the above case.
This is why they say "The law is an ass".
Ian
1. IMHO anyone who takes pictures of children dressed as or digitally altered to look like fairies, angels, sunflowers or pumpkins should be thrown in jail for life
Here's a question - what if the parents were nudists, and their kids wanted to follow in their tracks?
Neal
"You can dress a hooker up in a gown
She's still a hooker
Saying mythical fairies yada yada doesn't mean the photographer is any less a pervert than Tichy doing what he did
He/She still had to say YES I'LL TAKE THOSE!"
And??? What is wrong with taking the pix in the first place? Photographers take the pix they need to take to achieve their desired end. OF COURSE he said "Yes I'll take those." I would too.
"Where is the REAL difference?"
The real difference is that these were consensual pictures for artistic purposes, not childhood eroticism, pornography, exploitation, etc. Seeing certain parts of the body, photographing them, and showing them to others does not make one a pervert. Perhaps I am mentally challenged for believing this.
At any rate, when it comes to the law, the final use is almost always what matters in published material.
"If Tichy had altered his women into fairies etc would that make his initial photographs less "perverted"
Perversion is in the eye of the beholder. The enjoyment or portrayal of the body is not perverted in and of itself.
"I still see it as being very strange"
I see the fact that ANYONE would see this as being very strange to be disgusting and hypocritical! What is is exactly that you have against people seeing the bodies of young people? The fear that SOMEONE might get off on it? Heavenforbid someone should get horny over the WRONG THING. Heavenforbid that ANYONE should enjoy looking at the human body at all, or using it as art. Jeezus H. Christ. Aren't there bigger fish to fry that what you think people should be getting horny over? Molesting a child is one thing, but you can't police thought and emotion, so why try?
Ahem... bared shoulders on the children in your avatar? Ahem.
You're kidding, right?
You're kidding, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?