If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Bollocks.
Not that I could define "art" myself though...
Listen to me, I went to art college.
Then how can you claim to have been an "art student"...
Personally, when I was at college, I was in the bar every lunchtime and breack in lectures. I thought that was the point of going...?
The definiton of pornography is material that is sexual in nature, and involving sexual practices. Both pictures were just naked girls- big deal. Assuming that the pictures of the "child porn site" were just poses, and nothing more sexual than that, then it's not harmful and it's not pornographic. In my opinion anyway.
I question the artist displaying pictures like that, because I wouldn't do that to my child, but it's not disgusting or depraved. Paedophiles are just as likely to be found beating off over the Next Directory- plenty of girls in knickers and swimsuits in there. Shall we ban catalogues?
I can't stand the fucking hysteria about child pornography and paedophilia. The hardcore stuff is sick, and the people involved in that should rot in a damp cell, but a picture of a little girl in the buff is neither depraved, harmful nor pornographic. This is as ridculous as when that newsreader's boyfriend was arrested for taking pictures of his step-daughter in the bath.
I question the artist, and I'm worried that the site is more than posing, but more than that I say: so what? I saw a naked girl on Channel Five six months ago- it was a pan shot and there was a naked girl playing on the beach. I propose that we burn down Channel Five!!!
Besides, c'mon... this story was in the Scum, they love to pick a fight. That's ze media for ya. Blowing everything out of proportion to boost their sales.
Very well worded, & totally agree.
For weeks before it was published we had a series of very odd men coming in asking if it was out yet! I considered passingtheir details onto the police. The problem is that some people will use material like this to fuel their fantasies and desires. However, I think its wrong to equate pictures of children naked (as in art works and family shots) with pornography.
the other picture in the sun which apparantly came from a child porn site, i havent seen it (dont want to either) was presumedly taken in a sexual context, not in the innocent context as the mother/artist has done, and was possibly taken in a abusive situation so that is wrong, and ILLEGAL to reproduce in a newspaper!
and i find it disturbing aobut the increasing sexualisation of childhood, i blame the advertisers!
People use the Next catalogue as a fuel for their desires and fantasies, people use pictures of the school swimming team printed in the paper as a fuel for their desires and fantasies.
So what?
LondonerChris- the second picture was of a girl posed leaning against a wall, it showed no more than the "art" picture. It was from a cp website, or so The Sun alleges, but to say it is porn is ridiculous.
I fail to see the fuss. The Currant Bun is as bad as The Mail for always needing to be disgusted by something- they'll die of high blood pressure before long, one hopes.
What I find more disturbing is The Sun paying 16-year-old girls sums of money to take all their clothes off. That is immoral.