By: buzzanddidj
8/07/2008
3:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
buzzanddidj Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
';So is Anne Geddes now not OK?
Tell me why her pictures are OK, but not the ones that have recently made the news?;
because ..... those cute 'baby' picks are not 'suggestive' poses done by 6yo's that you expect to see in adult mags.'
And IF there is an element out there, and I'm sure there IS, that get 'turned on' by Anne Geddes work, is THIS justification enough to ban them ?
. |
|
By: thy.nemesis
8/07/2008
3:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
thy.nemesis Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>> By: nessa_sarily_so
Most pedos are relatives or friends of the family. <<
That sort of stands to reason - not just statistically (everyone has a family tree but none of us gets to choose the preceding or parallel branches) but also in terms of opportunity of access...
But some of the tendencies and activities of would-be paedophiles have changed with the increasing alienation of individuals in modern society, and rapid changes in technology...
Either way, the original (and arguably artistic) photos taken by the mother of this particular 6 year old were probably not as big an abuse of her, as the far more recent decision by her father and others to cynically exploit her for the primary objective of making a political point...
The multiplier ramifications, of the actions of those adults who ought to have protected her, are uncertain and potentially infinite...
No doubt, the value of her mother's paintings and prints have skyrocketed overnight...
The child who has been conditioned into being an exhibitionist may even be awarded valuable new modelling contracts...
But the child will no doubt suffer emotionally and socially once she has to go out on her own to face her peers, their parents, school teachers and staff and others - and she is definitely now at greater risk than her peers of stalking, molestation, kidnapping etc....
Let us hope that the sickos leave her alone (media included!)... |
|
By: gia.gloria2001
8/07/2008
3:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gia.gloria2001 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
LOL at durrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhh
oops forgot to stop the h key :) |
|
By: pathos065
8/07/2008
3:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
pathos065 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Any naked pictures of any underage child is morally and ethically wrong, but lets get a grip on reality, the more people beat this up (and that includes K_Rudd) the more oxygen will be given to it. Art for Arts sake has been acceptable for centuries but the way people are reacting to this issure is only going to make more people want it. |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:10 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: kjm96
8/07/2008
3:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kjm96 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| nessa - i give up, i will stop wasting my time you are just trolling. |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:12 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: gia.gloria2001
8/07/2008
3:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gia.gloria2001 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
bzzzzzzzzzz
the debate is over what i and plenty more see as 'suggestive' pics taken of a 6yo, not cutesy Anne Geddes pics, totally different,
See, i just virtually repeated myself, happy now, same answer. |
|
By: bundyau
8/07/2008
3:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bundyau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
duurrrhhhhhh
2 minutes ago
-----------------------
So you are still here.
Heard any good dead toddler stories lately?You used to get quite a kick out of them. |
|
By: gia.gloria2001
8/07/2008
3:15 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gia.gloria2001 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| well this topic just took a dive for the worst ~ ciao |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:17 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: thy.nemesis
8/07/2008
3:18 pm Yahoo! Profile:
thy.nemesis Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Getting back to the KMart catalogue diversionary argument...
When paedophiles' computers and homes are raided, do investigators really find that they have a preference for KMart-style catalogue pics rather than for nudy ones!? |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:21 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:24 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:24 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: nw8hillbilly
8/07/2008
3:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nw8hillbilly Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
lets play a game of empower the pedo,
we'll start by making sure that nothing we ever do could possibly arouse them,
we will change our standards of behaviour and introduce new "moralities" to placate them,
We all know theres one behind every hedge....the media told us.
The fact of the mater is that the majority of pedos will have veiwed the naked body of their victim...in the bath, when they changed the nappy, in the kids bedroom, in their home, as a parent, uncle, aunt or long time family friend....it gives us far more peace of mind to blame the unknown spectre of the paedophile and internet predator....rather than look too deep.
Never heard so much rubbish as banning these types of photos, what next? ban topless bathing for 4 year old girls? are we headed towards some sort of stupid victorian era because of a handfull of sickos? |
|
By: nessa_sarily_so
8/07/2008
3:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nessa_sarily_so Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
kjm I just don't happen to agree with you, that doesn't make me a troll.
I can not look at a picture of a child and see anything sexual in it. |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:34 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:36 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: nessa_sarily_so
8/07/2008
3:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nessa_sarily_so Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
No it doesn't...it also doesn't mean all pictures of naked humans need to be banned.
We've just had years and years of out of control stupid PC, now we are heading for years and years of stupid censorship.
Does everything have to be for the lowest brain level? |
|
By: nessa_sarily_so
8/07/2008
3:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nessa_sarily_so Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
If I bend over far enough I can see my own a r s e & not get sexually aroused. Does this mean I should feel compelled to do it?
Flexible huh? |
|
By: nw8hillbilly
8/07/2008
3:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nw8hillbilly Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| no one is compelled to study art, no one is compelled to look at anything they dont want to, but a hell of a lot of people seem to be easily convinced as to what is 'good' for society and that seems to involve justification for banning anything |
|
By: buzzanddidj
8/07/2008
3:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
buzzanddidj Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
'If I bend over far enough I can see my own a r s e & not get sexually aroused. Does this mean I should feel compelled to do it?
Flexible huh?'
Use it....
Or lose it, nessa
. |
|
By: duurrrhhhhhh
8/07/2008
3:51 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: renee197330
8/07/2008
3:54 pm Yahoo! Profile:
renee197330 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Are these parents nuts or what how could they say this is art i think its a porn mag for the paedephilla people.Even the girl didnt know what to say she had to ask the clown standing next to her oh opps that was her father he looks like a paedephile himself and where was the mother away taking more nude pics of kids.I think they did all this so they can get there name out and there art work as it brought so much reaction last time.hey if thats art i say keep it in your house and dont show it to the public. |
|
