On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:05:47 +0000, Austin Shackles
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>Trouble is, there always will be and there's little you can do to stop that.
>It ****es me off that in a futile attempt to prevent perverts from deriving
>perverted pleasure from photos the rest of us are cast as demons.
Not necessarily 'demons' but left open to suspicion, certainly.
I've actually found it odd asking people if they mind me using
photographs I've taken. An example of this was a few months ago.
I've been collating a long series of photographs detailing the works
in my local park (easy to do, I walk Max there every day). I set up a
site about it (
www.fompp.org for those who're interested - I'm rather
pleased with the video...)
Although most of the pics are fairly generic, some of the local kids
posed when they saw me snapping away and it really was too good an
opportunity to miss - as they were having such a good time and the
pics conveyed that very well. I had an uneasy feeling about taking
pics of other people kids in this way and made a point of asking all
of their parents if they'd mind me using the photos on the site.
None did, and actually seemed very surprised that I'd asked. however
one of the parents who I've known for some 15 odd years, later
mentioned to me that by my asking, she was now suspicious of anyone
taking photos in the park, as I'd somewhat accidentally made her aware
that some people may have different 'motives' - which isn't
necessarily a bad outcome as at least she's now aware, but it did also
make me think that I'd possibly opened up a range of issues...
If that makes sense...
>We need to stop hunting witches in the wrong places, IMHO.
Balance is important I reckon. Being a little 'wary' or mildly
suspicious has actually led to something much more unpleasant being
uncovered (here, actually), but that, or other innocent practice needs
to be taken in context. some people _will_ abuse, the majority (I'd
hope) do not. Good to have a wry eye whilst not engaging in panic,
IMO.
>as to the morality of "porn" of the non-child kind, well, I dunno. Provided
>the people involved in the making of it do so of their own free will, I
>don't see the problem. Anyone who's forced into such making is in the
>category above, as are those who force them. Apart from that, well,
>whatever floats your boat. Personally, I find it rather boring - the
>depiction of the sexual act or genitalia, even including various
>perversions, is a very limited subject and as such quickly loses interest,
>for me at least. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life, and most
>"porn" that I've seen lacks any meaningful variety.
My take on this is really quite simplistic. There needs to be a clear
distinction made between 'erotic / fantasy' and 'abuse / exploitation'
"Pornography" should (but I'm sure does not always) fall into the
first, and be a contracted, often commercial process which is, or
should be based firmly upon 'consent'. It is not illegal and it
should be up to nobody but the consenting individuals involved what
they choose to do, view etc. I'd fiercly defend the right of adults
to view whatever legal material they wish.
However, if we take this concept of 'consent', and apply it to
children - who by definition are unable to give consent, we're talking
about exploitation and abuse - not pornography.
--
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one
of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being
increasingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
In memory of Brian {Hamilton Kelly} who logged off 15th September 2005