One of the weird things I found when coming back to this country from living in Arabia was the MASSIVE sexuality of the media.

Seriously, for six months I saw almost no semi-nudity; and then when I came back here, there was a number of times where I had to turn away blushing; and I'm really not that much of a prude.

Look at Beckham's ad for example.

The problem with the media is that they have opened up the lynch mob mentality by exaggerating every aspect of sexuality. For the heterosexual man, CLEAVAGE SELLS; so let's stick it on everything. For the gay man, jokes about Fisting are commonplace (which leads to their demonisation). For the women, if it's not "How to drive your man wild in bed!"(Hint: Wear a nightie and just say "Yes" most nights) then it's rakes with wet thighs.

When I was 4, long in the very distant past, we had a swimming pool in the school. Little tiny thing it was, but we had no changing rooms, so we changed in the classroom behind our chairs. Boys and girls together, completed naked at that point.

Nothing ever came of it (and it also doubled as rudimentary sex education "Why hasn't she got one?"); but can you imagine that today?

People are scared by what is an extremely rare phenomena thrown into their face; and if Joe Public is terrified of his little angel being stalked, then the Government will always step in to protect them, no matter what freedom he wants to give away in return.

Romeo and Juliet were 15 and 14. HAS ANYONE BANNED THIS SICK FILTH?!?!!??!?!?!?? *cough*

The_root_of_all_evil:
Romeo and Juliet were 15 and 14. HAS ANYONE BANNED THIS SICK FILTH?!?!!??!?!?!?? *cough*

Ahah That is considered the world's greatest depiction of true love, and not a simple case of teens mutually affected by their hormones... Or is it?

The world's first Emo's. ;)

The_root_of_all_evil:

Romeo and Juliet were 15 and 14. HAS ANYONE BANNED THIS SICK FILTH?!?!!??!?!?!?? *cough*

WHAT?

and i was forced to study this in school?

Who will march with me on Shakespeare's grave and piss on it in the name of public decency!?!?

Fenixius:
.
By that logic, because adolescants are going through puberty, any imagery which involves "hormonally and emotionally unstable tweens" must be sexual, yeah? Don't think that because you inferred something, it was implied. That goes for all people, all the time, too. I'm sick of people seeing something that wasn't intended to be there, and going on about how implicit it was. It might not have been. Go talk to the creator first, before you get your torches and pitchforks because it implied something.

Congrats good sir, you have just sterilised the art world. the whole idea about people reading deeper and deeper into the work is what art appreciation should be about. good work makes you look for meaning and implications, stories, struggles, whatever. bad art doesn't have a meaning, it just is. and this guy is a serious artist, who had something to say.

however, if i decide the best way to say something is to use projectile babies as my medium, then i dont think that my message will get across. My message will probably get lost because everyone will be too shocked that i was throwing babies. And that is the core issue here. Not what he was saying, but the fact that it;s done in an "offensive" and "prevocative" way, which brings with it implications. in the same way that my projectile infant piece has nothing to do with violence, it's implied by the medium.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Romeo and Juliet were 15 and 14. HAS ANYONE BANNED THIS SICK FILTH?!?!!??!?!?!?? *cough*

Wait, I was always told Romeo was 18... wait, upon further research, it seems Romeo was about 16, and Juliet was about 13. Still, let's get those pitchforks root.

Well this is kind of branching into two topics... People rightfully or wrongfully being dubbed pedophiles, and the original Nudity = Erotic yes/no argument...

I've already stated my views on nudity. I agree with what others have said, that it's all fine until someone makes a stink about it. The mall 4 blocks down from me has a statue of a barely clothed man and two naked children, anatomically correct. Nobody has given two shits about the nudity to date, not since the early 80's when the mall and statues went up. It's not like the man is doing anything to the boys, or any other crude acts. It's just statues in roman fashion. I just know that some day, some prude 80y/o Christian house-bitch is going to raise a stink about them though... We had anatomically correct bull/buffalo statues made up for Klondike Days, and some religious fuckwits went around town and castrated all the statues because it offended them... There will always be people who ruin things for everyone else, and these people need to be identified, and shot, or one day they will castrate Michaelangelo's "David" and other centuries-old works.

Re: Pedos and Sex Offenders.
I've read stories of fathers who had innocent pictures of their children in the bath, or frolicking naked around the house, those pictures that most every parent takes and thinks nothing of it... Well they bring these photos to be developed, and get arrested for creation and possession of child pornography. What The Fuck! It's kids being kids, but daddy's off to jail because what was an easy way to embarrass your kid at his/her wedding just became a capital offense.

Then there's the stories of how easy it is to be labeled a sex offender. A man was drunk, headed out of the bar, and took a leak on the side wall. He was thus branded a sex offender (WTF for right?), and he and his family were legally forced to move so he can't be around children. His family had to move to a sex-offender OK zone, which meant a guy who did no harm to anyone now has his two daughters living in a neighborhood full of other sex offenders. They called this justice.

And "Sex Offender" and "Pedophile" seem to be interchangeable words these days, but that's like saying "Drunk" and "Druggie" are the same. Sex offenders may or may not have any inclination towards kids. Could just be a guy who continued humping a chick after she said no. Could be someone who used a daterape drug. Or even could be a run of the mill flasher. Those are not pedophiles. America (and Canada) has jumped on a runaway train of sensationalism and media hype, and now everyone is afraid of everyone else, and thinks that everybody in the world wants to rape them, their kids, and their pet dog. And what has this all accomplished? Nothing with regards to stopping child abuse, but lives are being ruined daily. And who would of thought that taking a leak in public could cause your family more grief than if you had shot someone?

I find it odd how sensitive everyone has become to underage nudity in the past few decades. Underage breasts in films seem to have been acceptable in the 70s. In movies, there was the version of Romeo and Juliet where the actress was sixteen one of her breasts was on screen for about 2 seconds. We watched this movie in High School and didn't skip that scene. The breast in this scene certainly was sexual. Juliet just woke up beside Romeo, and it was implied that they made sexytime the night before. yet, this movie is still acceptable.
Additionally, I remember renting a movie called Walkabout where the young female protagonist is shown rather explicitly taking a shower for over a minute. there's nothing sexual about this scene, but it's rather odd that movie hasn't been banned in some form when such content would cause a massive uproar if it where in a film released today.

I don't think a lack of underage breasts has hurt cinema in any way, but I still find it odd that we're more uptight about the issue now.

As for the art exhibit, I'd have to see if it was tastefully done, but I imagine it was and people are getting upset over nothing. I find the starving of a dog in the name of art much much more offensive, and I don't even condemn that. Yes, I'm aware that I'm likely a horrible person for feeling that way.

brenflood:
I find it odd how sensitive everyone has become to underage nudity in the past few decades. Underage breasts in films seem to have been acceptable in the 70s. In movies, there was the version of Romeo and Juliet where the actress was sixteen and her one of her breasts was on screen for about 2 seconds. We watched this movie in High School and didn't skip that scene. The breast in this scene certainly was sexual. Juliet just woke up beside Romeo, and it was implied that they made sexytime the night before. yet, this movie is still acceptable.

I remember watching that one in English... the whole class cracked when it came on screen. Too bad I was busy talking to a friend.

Ultrajoe:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Romeo and Juliet were 15 and 14. HAS ANYONE BANNED THIS SICK FILTH?!?!!??!?!?!?? *cough*

WHAT?

and i was forced to study this in school?

Who will march with me on Shakespeare's grave and piss on it in the name of public decency!?!?

I will but only because the toliets not working!

*Joke*

Larenxis:
Non-sexualized nudity is a good thing in art, I say. I think it's better if it's not edited or manipulated in any way, but it's okay if it's not. I know this guy who was surprised one day that girls have hair on their arms, and it struck me how little people know about what's natural.

The pictures in question were about the vunrabilty of the young gril (who I remember being 13).

But all this goes under the question: 'What is art?'. I could arguee that anything is art. I nude photo of a 13 year old girl seems more tasteless to me then actual art. I couldn't stand around looking at it.

PurpleRain:

But all this goes under the question: 'What is art?'. I could arguee that anything is art. I nude photo of a 13 year old girl seems more tasteless to me then actual art. I couldn't stand around looking at it.

Everything created by a person is art.

However people tend to have the opinion that because something can be considered art (the Bill Henson photographs for example) it somehow places it above the law. The photographs are disgusting and calling them art does nothing. The photograph in question is a naked 13 year old, in my opinion that is not something that should be put on public view (or even created in the first place) however some celebrities thought otherwise and whined to the prime minister to have pictures of naked 13 year olds legal.

Bah, what does Cate blanchette know.

Fire Daemon:

PurpleRain:

But all this goes under the question: 'What is art?'. I could arguee that anything is art. I nude photo of a 13 year old girl seems more tasteless to me then actual art. I couldn't stand around looking at it.

Everything created by a person is art.

However people tend to have the opinion that because something can be considered art (the Bill Henson photographs for example) it somehow places it above the law. The photographs are disgusting and calling them art does nothing. The photograph in question is a naked 13 year old, in my opinion that is not something that should be put on public view (or even created in the first place) however some celebrities thought otherwise and whined to the prime minister to have pictures of naked 13 year olds legal.

Bah, what does Cate blanchette know.

Wasn't she the one that wanted an actor in every school during the 2020 summit?

Anyway, I've seen a few of these pictures (off the news) and I think I remember it showing actaul nudity, not back shots or coverups, but actual nudity. 13 year old breats aren't art. You're perfectly right by saying art shouldn't be above the law.

I can't understand how everyone nowdays jumps on photos as porno,
i can remember his first name, but one of the froids painted lots of pictures of naked ladys but he was not dived upon by the police and beaten up by the media.

I will admit there is a fine line between older ladys and teenagers, but if she wanted to do it, and she activly sought him out how is he still liable?
It is fairly descusting that people would want to take photos of childeren like this, and i thing anyone who wants to should be in therapy.
I don't know the age of consent in Aus, and the Usa but i think people should be able to chose when they are younger for this kind of thing.
Not sex mind as teenaged pregnancy is a huge problem but things like modeling.

Alotak:
I can't understand how everyone nowdays jumps on photos as porno,
i can remember his first name, but one of the froids painted lots of pictures of naked ladys but he was not dived upon by the police and beaten up by the media.

I will admit there is a fine line between older ladys and teenagers, but if she wanted to do it, and she activly sought him out how is he still liable?

I don't know the age of consent in Aus, and the Usa but i think people should be able to chose when they are younger for this kind of thing.
Not sex mind as teenaged pregnancy is a huge problem but things like modeling.

i agree with the consent, but these were just shots of nude girls, no expression, no special message, nothing but nude girls.

Im conflicted, i don't want to censor art... but i don't want 'art' to become a shield word for the controversial.

The age of consent in Aus is tricky, first of all it is stated clearly as 18, then there is a rule which states that if there is consent between both parties, neither party is a legally responsible guardian (teacher, coach) and the underage party is within two years of 18 it is not considered statutory rape, and is to an unknown extent legal.
If both are under 18 and there was consent, no crime.
If one was under 16 and the other was under 18 but over 16 I think it is considered Statutory Rape, but those cases have always been a closed court so its not possible to access the judgements, or for that matter even find a precedent relating to that kind of scenario.

Anyway having seen some of those photos I can tell you it really pushes the line.

On a similar note, I believe that one of the groups that were outraged about this, were also pushing for the National Gallery of Victoria to cease displaying the nude painting known as "Chloe" when it was hanging in the Russell Street gallery.

EDIT: I forgot the G!!!

jim_doki:
im sorry, but the last three posts above me have said that nudity isnt sexual, and that is just not the case. nudity is at the heart of sexuality, and in the modern media there is little else that we see nudity for other than sex. That is, i think, at the heart of this issue. here we see the youngest of young women getting naked. hormonally and emotionally unstable tweens getting naked. i mean there is at the very least implied sexuality there, right?

In the millions years of humanity, before we had internet, TV#s etc. or even the simple versions of houses (out of grass or so) we were naked cause of the lag of textiles or even the development of something like clothes.

I really do not think that those ancestors of ours did sex the whole day, and nothing else, cause in case of that we would not be on the edge of rising up to the stars and destroying our planet.

To come to the end of this post, i do not think that nudity naturally is sex.
It is the conditioning of the society that makes clothes important in the way of hiding your body INSTEAD OF PROTECTING YOURSELF FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE BAD WEATHER OR COLD TEMPERATURES, wich was, as i think the original purpose of fur and petskins as the first clothes.

But that makes no difference that we have to protect those who are the next generations, IF they are rely in danger.
I bet no one asked the girl what they thougth of them.
And in the end, respect to them, cause i would not have the selftrust to show my naked body to the public.

While we're talking about underage nudity on screen, anyone remember Alien 3? Not only is the naked body of a young girl shown on screen, but it's cut open and carved up by the surgeon as well. Damn, those sado-masochistic paedo's must have been cackling their way through that film, right?

In regards to nudity, kids and art, I pretty much agree wholesale with what Khell said.

In regards to kids and sexualisation (as in the title), I think the worst thing a parent could do is simply ignore the issue in order to try and protect a kid's 'innocence'. Kids are not innocent, and they never have been. While you may think they're out playing with hoops and footballs, most likely they're trying their first cigarettes, drinking their first beers, swearing and cussing, and daring each other to kiss that girl over there. That's what childhood is- fooling around, trying to pretend you're grown up.

The most responsible thing a parent could do is to talk to their kids about sex and its responsibilities. Obviously, you should wait until your child is mature enough to understand the concept of what you're talking about first, but you shouldn't kid yourself that your child will remain pure and innocent if you leave it till they're 17 or 18. If they're not going to learn about sex from you, they're going to learn about it from their friends instead. And in all honesty, who do you trust more to teach them about such an important subject.

brenflood:
I find it odd how sensitive everyone has become to underage nudity in the past few decades. Underage breasts in films seem to have been acceptable in the 70s. In movies, there was the version of Romeo and Juliet where the actress was sixteen one of her breasts was on screen for about 2 seconds.

Uhmm, there's a reason for that...Roman Polanski had quite a thing for little girls...

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Kids are not innocent, and they never have been.

Read any Roald Dahl book and look at the underlying story. Now graduate that to adult level and see if you can get less than a 15 certificate.

To link in with the OP, most nudes are extremely boring once you've seen a few nude humans. The sexualisation is only done by their posing or provocative dressing. I'd challenge anyone over teenage years to find Page 3 or Page 7 of the Sun erotic.(Non-Brits, nip to thesun.co.uk) It's just a girl next door with her tits out. Nice to look at if you're in the mood for that sort of thing, but not really the stuff of dreams.

it's all about intent. Pornographic doesn't mean naked. Pornographic simply means devoid of cultural, intellectual, artistic, or social value. I also think nudity =/= sexuality. A woman breastfeeding: not sexual. Bathing: not inherently sexual. In America, our puritan ancestors put this idea on us that skin=bad that we still believe to this day. Even people that accept and love it freely like it because it's taboo. we all have skin, butt cheeks, chests and genitals. Honestly, what is so offensive about that?

I don't like seeing 8 year olds or young kids(they come in with their parents to where i work alot)who wear short skirts and have their bellies exposed and are twirling their hair like they're Kate Moss, where has the innocence gone? I can understand times change but there has to be a line, parents shouldn't allow their kids to dress up like that.

The_root_of_all_evil:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Kids are not innocent, and they never have been.

Read any Roald Dahl book and look at the underlying story. Now graduate that to adult level and see if you can get less than a 15 certificate.

To link in with the OP, most nudes are extremely boring once you've seen a few nude humans. The sexualisation is only done by their posing or provocative dressing. I'd challenge anyone over teenage years to find Page 3 or Page 7 of the Sun erotic.(Non-Brits, nip to thesun.co.uk) It's just a girl next door with her tits out. Nice to look at if you're in the mood for that sort of thing, but not really the stuff of dreams.

I have to agree with this, there's always a Sun newspaper upstairs on the break room table when i go to work and i always take a quick look at Page 3, they're beautiful and all but it's just "meh" now, it doesn't shock me.

Eyclonus:
The age of consent in Aus is tricky, first of all it is stated clearly as 18,

it's 16 not 18 and very clearly stated as such

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Australia_and_Oceania#Australia

i don't think most photography and paintings are anything but art. sure there can be nudity in it but it's not necessarily a bad thing. look at Robert Mapplethorpe, he had his art put on trial and they won but it cost a lot of money

sadly there are more things we should consider with kids, such as some of the dolls and such, like the bratz, and other clothing they have for kids, like the "juicy" and such thing, you kid is 12 not 18, and last but not least the lack of good sex education.

the combination of all this leads to parents being shocked, shocked, SHOCKED i say, when their precious little snowflake gets knocked up or has some older guy picking them up and them wanting to go out and have sex and such.

i don't think we could go about sexuality differently but the big problem is this being brought to the forefront is a relatively new thing, we need some better education and also better parenting before things get any better

cleverlymadeup:
we need some better education and also better parenting before things get any better

To be perfectly honest it is the parents responsibility to teach them about sex, being taught sex at school is only to affirm what your parents should have already taught you. But that's not going to happen because most parents nowadays don't want to talk about sex with their children, it was heavily taboo in their day and they're shy to talk about it, it's that attitude that needs to be quashed.
My own parents just plonked a book in front of me about sex and told me to read it, I'm grateful that they brought me up with a sensible head on my shoulders in every other area otherwise i would've ignored that book and just gone out and gotten experience first hand by having sex and possibly getting a girl pregnant, then my life would be ruined, *wipes sweat from head at very thought*

This is completely off-topic, but Khell how did you get an animated sig? I thought Escapist didn't allow these.

Well, after looking at the art (and it is clearly that) I don't really see anything even remotely "sexual" about any of it, it's just another case of a government going overboard in the name of "public decency" and "for the good of the children"

Now, I am no expert in Australian law, but last I checked in the U.S.A child pornography was only defined as such if the photo was

A) Overtly sexual, like most pornography.
B) If the photo was clearly centered on the genitals, or fully exposed them in the case for females.
C) If any sexual act was, or looked to be in progress

And various other things, but the art in question clearly meets none of these, and I am assuming Australian law is similar in this case; otherwise he would have been charged. It's not as if he took advantage of them, their parents were undoubtedly involved, and agreed to allow it, and it's only us so called "civilized" people who go batshit crazy when anyone is nude; at what point did it become indecent to be human? Quite a few tribes all over the world don't wear clothing, and nobody tries to fine national geographic for taking pictures of them, how is this any different? How is this art wrong and the former not? If they were tribal African girls would this raid have happened? Probably not.

Now, as to the question about the clothed but in sexual poses. That is worse if anything, it IS prostituting their youth for their own gain and if anything they are the ones who should be raided.

There's also a potential problem with school. (Like normal, ;) )

Adults dressing as schoolchildren can be sexy, but there's a distinct line because it's only the adult body which shows off the sexuality.
(Similar with any sort of uniform really...it's the packaging more than what's underneath, but the shape still has to be there.)

The problem comes when a child is aware of their sexuality before they're aware of what effect it can have on others; and, IMHO, that's one of the things that Sex Ed should be teaching. As well as the de-inhibiting effects of certain drugs.

Let's face it, it can't fail. Finally you'd have well groomed men and more than partially dressed women. :)

Someone wearing something that leaves nothing to the imagination is broadcasting the message that there's nothing more to imagine, and that's a very dangerous broadcast in a world that teaches that sex is the passage to adulthood.

Let's face it, we're one of the only creatures on this world who has no mating cycle, massive hormonal urges and organs purely designed for pleasure, rather than just procreation; and then we're told that monogamy is everything...

Without clearly defined rules of what is right and wrong, who's surprised that this sort of thing gets people up in arms over their favourite little soapbox?

And I know this is a really stupid idea...But has anyone actually asked the kids what they feel about it?