Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: "The Todal" <deadmailbox@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:45:33 -0000
George Dawes wrote:
The Todal wrote:
"George Dawes" <spamalot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageYou are missing the point for your own twisted reasons. You and Cynic
news:6qd8cdFbrlujU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I would argue that 'most' people would agree that using a picture
of a naked child, with genitals marked with a broken glass cross,
under the title 'Virgin Killer' to sell records, (whether you find
it personally indecent), is an abuse of a young girl - whether or
not she found it so at the time. If the courts uphold that a girl
cannot consent to a sexual act at that time, how can anyone argue
that there was a complete absence of sexual motive in the image and
that she could sign a contract over image rights, not understanding
the consequences.
Genitals *obscured* by a broken glass cross.
I can only think that you personally find the image curiously
arousing, because I don't think most people would be in the least
troubled by it. Try this one - is this also abuse of a young girl?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hours_-_Funeral_for_a_Friend.jpg
purposely argue a line that is at a tangent to, so I'll say this only
once more for the hard of understanding.
It doesn't matter whether the the image is indecent or not.
I personally don't find it so, nor do i find it arousing or
particularly valid as an art form. I wouldn't be surprised to see it
on the wall of an art gallery, but I would find it disturbing to see it on
the racks
of a record shop.
One needs to look at the motive behind the image - if it was an art
thing, then we could have a slightly different discussion about
whether children should used in art photos, ie presentation, pose ,
relevance etc. This wasn't art, its a shock image
Not art but a shock image.
I'm afraid any artist would laugh at you.
designed to sell
records,
Yes, maybe. An image of a clothed child would be to sell something else -
clothes, toys, lifestyle. There is nothing inherently dishonourable about
using pictures of children to sell goods.
pulled when the band realised it was too shocking (look up
your own cite,Cynic) and disowned by them since.
And so if you believe that a 12 year old girl should be exploited for
commercial gain in a way most people find at the very least 'slightly
distasteful' , good on you.
It really isn't any worse than entering a 12 year old for a beauty contest
or a singing contest or "modelling", with a view to making money out of her.
Parents seem to do that all the time.
No sensible person would regard the image of that 12 year old on an album
cover as something degrading or of which the child should be ashamed in
later life.
.
- References:
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: Itchy Harris
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: The Real Doctor
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: Itchy Harris
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: George Dawes
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: The Todal
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: George Dawes
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: Itchy Harris
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: George Dawes
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: Cynic
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: George Dawes
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: Cynic
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: George Dawes
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: The Todal
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- From: George Dawes
- Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- Prev by Date: Re: Child-sex pervert killed by vigilantes
- Next by Date: Re: Four killed in stolen car which crashed in Bradford
- Previous by thread: Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- Next by thread: Re: The Shannon Matthews Commemorative Plate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|