Juvenile pornographers????

[Brian Ellis]

You need to excuse yourself. Read what I wrote in context instead of trying to stitch words from different sentences together to give an entirely new meaning.

Sentence 2: asexual, certain innuendo, boy ribbed mercilessly at school

Sentence 3: erotic misinterpretation.

Kevin wrote exactly what I was thinking, but you didn't attack him for saying the same thing in blunter terms (a weirdo would have an erotic misinterpretation, wouldn't he?)

I think an apology is in order for implying I'm a "very sick individual" in terms that leave no doubt as to your meaning.

[Gurm]

I think everyone needs to chill. I'm a father of 3, one of them is a girl, and I'm a relatively responsible member of society.

I'd be pretty upset if my daughter sent naked pictures of herself to ANYONE, I'd like to think that by the time she's old enough for that I would have impressed on her the lasting repercussions of such an act. But ... frankly I find the prevalent attitudes about nudity to be puzzling at best and outrageous at worst.

We live in a nation founded by freakish prudes, persecuted for being TOO prudish and forced to find someplace else to murder people for daring to have sexual thoughts. Let's not propagate such ridiculousness.

I vote that all the lawmakers involved in this fiasco be removed from office and forced to work in jobs that will give them actual perspective on life.

[KRSESQ]

What Gurm said. Take a deep breath, everyone.

If the image could be taken as asexual because of the somewhat androgenous image of the boy, and that boy gets teased in school for "looking like a girl," then, as I said, he was probably getting teased already. On the other hand, we know NOTHING about this boy. He might be a right bastard with a black belt, in which case nobody is bothering him any.

In any event, many pre-pubescent boys look just a little effeminate. You should see my niece's son (whom I know only from photos). He was 8 before I realized that was a boy in those pictures. He's a teenager now and he still has those soft, rounded feminine features. The coke-bottle glasses don't help, either.

As for any possible erotic misinterpretation of the photo, that's strictly in the eye of the beholder. The photo might raise a few eyebrows in polite society, but nobody's gathering torches and pitchforks because most people can attach a more-or-less correct context to the image.

The greatest reaction to this photo might stem from the boy looking straight into the camera. That alone suggests a certain level of intimacy between subject and viewer. The fact that the image portrays an inherent high-level of intimacy between the mother and her children, and the boy, by looking into the camera essentially invites the viewer in, heightens that intimacy almost off the charts and perhaps that's what you're reacting to, Brian.

Kevin

[TransformX]

Brian, I think that anyone seeing anything erotic in this picture has his or her mind at a very low altitude relative to the gutter. That's what I said and that's the way I see it.
No, you could argue whether you see it that way or not, either is fine by me.

[Gurm]

What Gurm said. Take a deep breath, everyone.

As for any possible erotic misinterpretation of the photo, that's strictly in the eye of the beholder. The photo might raise a few eyebrows in polite society, but nobody's gathering torches and pitchforks because most people can attach a more-or-less correct context to the image.

Even if they can't... I argue that "polite society" needs to take a valium. I'm no nudist, nor am I especially "progressive" in my thinking. But honestly, even if mother AND child were naked... cope. First of all it's art. Second of all they ARE INTIMATE. They're mother and child! That's about as intimate as you get, between birth and breastfeeding...

The greatest reaction to this photo might stem from the boy looking straight into the camera. That alone suggests a certain level of intimacy between subject and viewer. The fact that the image portrays an inherent high-level of intimacy between the mother and her children, and the boy, by looking into the camera essentially invites the viewer in, heightens that intimacy almost off the charts and perhaps that's what you're reacting to, Brian.

Honestly? I think he's just ... uh ... old. That's NOT a crack on you, Brian. Just a statement of fact. He comes from a certain mindset, a certain time. I look at that picture and see nothing but cute, and have to FORCE myself to realize that prudes might see something else. (and in doing so I get angry at prudes) And I don't even think BRIAN sees something else. He simply sees more easily that people see something, due to his long acclimation to that mindset.

Seriously, society needs to chill out. Especially here in the US of Hypocricy A.

[Nowhere]

...
In any event, many pre-pubescent boys look just a little effeminate. You should see my niece's son (whom I know only from photos). He was 8 before I realized that was a boy in those pictures. He's a teenager now and he still has those soft, rounded feminine features. The coke-bottle glasses don't help, either.

Adding something related, and to lighten up this thread

My buddy is quite like that, or at least was until his early twenties, not sure now. Anyway, when he was 20 he somehow ended up sitting with his girfriend next to the route of "equality parade" (translating from PL directly; basically a demonstration of homosexuals). One young, female reporter approched them beacuse she wanted to make an interview with a pair of lesbians

There's of course an easy solution which I personally implement - after all "there are only two kinds of people without facial hair: woman and children" Works even though I have long hair (well, mostly works...unless my face/figure/way of movement isn't readily visible; like when some barely standing drunk grabs me by the buttock, or when, again, young female ticket controller wakes me up in a train ;/ ). But I'm not complaining at my looks - when I do shave a little too much I get asked for ID when buying beer (8 years over the limit, and smoker for most of those years), perhaps it'll last

The greatest reaction to this photo might stem from the boy looking straight into the camera. That alone suggests a certain level of intimacy between subject and viewer. The fact that the image portrays an inherent high-level of intimacy between the mother and her children, and the boy, by looking into the camera essentially invites the viewer in, heightens that intimacy almost off the charts and perhaps that's what you're reacting to, Brian.

Kevin

And that technique is not really unusual in National Geographic...

Even if they can't... I argue that "polite society" needs to take a valium. I'm no nudist, nor am I especially "progressive" in my thinking. But honestly, even if mother AND child were naked... cope. First of all it's art. Second of all they ARE INTIMATE. They're mother and child! That's about as intimate as you get, between birth and breastfeeding...

Hmmm...in that case perhaps I simply don't care at all (cut out, no breastfeeding ever (well, not involving food ), cared for by machine (but then...why case mods don't make me hot? ;/ OTOH I sympathise with Cavil...)

Honestly? I think he's just ... uh ... old. That's NOT a crack on you, Brian. Just a statement of fact. He comes from a certain mindset, a certain time. I look at that picture and see nothing but cute, and have to FORCE myself to realize that prudes might see something else. (and in doing so I get angry at prudes) And I don't even think BRIAN sees something else. He simply sees more easily that people see something, due to his long acclimation to that mindset.

And besides Brian is still ok, especially in comparison to many (most? all?) folks of his age that I've known.

PS. Wait...Gurm as a moderating factor? Something's wrong here...