I Know It When I See It
Subtitle, a riff on my last post, Is There a Nickel's Worth of Difference?
I just looked at the picture that Elton John is in trouble over.
Regular readers know that I skew socially liberal and libertarian.
Here’s my problem. I’ve always said that “pornography,” whatever that means, is a moving target and that we should be reluctant to condemn it. First Amendment. Artistic intent. Basic libido.
The picture is of two girls. Clothed. Sort of. The younger bent over backward from the knees, on the floor, not quite just below the spread legs of the older girl standing just behind her, both with their faces obscured by their hair.
The picture screams wrong. Here’s my problem. If both of the subjects were twenty years older, I wouldn’t have a problem with the picture.
Is there a meaningful, nickel's worth of, difference?
6 comments:
I saw a censored version of the photo on BBC News last night.
My knee-jerk response is always to defend the artist, but frankly I can't find a way to do it this time. I have no idea what the photographer was trying to express, and I can't imagine a context where this photo would be appropriate and necessary.
I have not seen the photo so I can't comment on it. And things can be taken out of context in all kinds of ways. I, too, go first to defend artistic freedom. And I am not easily offended. Having worked for about six months on the fringes of the "adult industry" (subject of a post all its own) I gained a degree of understanding and acceptance of the people who work in it.
However, I am also a parent and I know that young children and sexually charged situations belong nowhere near each other.
Thomas and WriteGirl,
Thanks for commenting. The more I think about this, the more my thoughts are muddled.
Maybe where I come down is where libertarian thought draws a line. People should be able to do what they want to do until what they are doing harm someone else. But even that line doesn't necessisarily work. I just don't know.
"Artistic freedom" is interesting when it comes to sex stuff. I know that the adult industry survived for a long time on the First Amendment. Then Justice Souter wrote an opinion that said that a dancer's erotic expression could be fully expressed even if the State required her or him to cover certain parts of the body. The problem is that he was right.
Then the adult industry go into "secondary effects" of adult entertainment. For a while local governments were shutting down strip joints based on bogus studys that concluded, without evidence, that clubs reduced property values and led to crime.
Now, most communities just zone the clubs' locations.
None of these approaches addresses the point made in my post. Kids in the photo, to me, are bad wrong. Put two consenting adults in the same picture and it's ok. Other than consent, what's the difference?
I finally saw the photo. It made me uncomfortable, because the subjects are children. It just seemed wrong. Adults in that pose or something similar would not bother me at all.
Haven't seen the photo, hadn't heard Sir Elton was in any kind of trouble.
As they say at work, "If there's room for doubt, don't do it!"
Let me go wwwwaaaayyyy out here, why is Elton looking at girls? Isn't he married to his gay partner?
I saw the pic after reading what you wrote about it. If both little girls were wearing panties I would see nothing wrong with the pic itself. There are adults who will see the pose as provocative, but kids are quite innocent in moving about like this...I say this both as a mother, and as a clinician who worked in child psychiatry for five years. However, that said...the fact that the one little girl is nude and quite on display is a reason to not reproduce or distribute that photo. You said you wouldn't have a problem with the pic if both subjects were 20 years older. Me either. The difference is, neither little girl can legally consent to release such a photo, and when they're old enough to recognize themselves, if it's already been done...well, I can't imagine an adolescent who wouldn't be embarrassed by having such a photo of themselves distributed, and there's your nickel's worth of difference, at least insofar as I'm concerned.
Judi
Post a Comment