Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Stupid bitch.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:42 amLock her ass up!
August 17th, 2008 at 10:48 amSick bitch!
August 17th, 2008 at 11:12 amDoes she not realize this will haunt her daughter for the rest of her life? Does she not realize how some sick SOBs are going to view her daughter? Does she not realize this is making her daughter a target for some sick pervert?
stupid, sick uncaring.. take the child.. there is hope for the child still.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pmtaking nude photos of minors is not necessarily child porn. What determines if a pic is porn vs artistic is if it is sexually explicit or “lascivious”. Doesn’t sound like she broke any laws.
That being said, having nude pix of your daughter on display in such a public forum is just stupid.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pmJayMS
I agree. Nudity in art that involves children is a slippery slope, more so now than ever. It all depends on context and how the subject is portrayed, and the tricky part of that is that context is almost always debatable.
As a person involved with the arts, this is a debate I’m familiar with.
These images were taken within the context of documenting her kid’s growth, and I can see the argument for that. I can’t say I would do the same but I do see her point. I don’t think it’s unusual for parents to take nude photos of their kids (like the dreaded “naked baby” pics they use to embarass you) but it is unusual to take so many. It’s going to be a tough sell for some people. In this case, I think the documentary-style of the exhibit removes any lascivious
nature.
As I said before, it’s a slippery slope. Some of the greatest classical paintings by the Old Masters feature nude children and minors, and they are regarded as High Art. Some of them definitely have sexual connotations, such as Caravaggio’s “Cupid Triumphant.”
This is an argument that will not go away anytime soon.
BTW, a pretty good movie about this very topic is the James Woods film “Dirty Pictures,” about the Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:28 pmCPS where are you?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pmThis so called mother needs to be in jail ASAP.
What a jerk
Baby pics are okay, but once you move to frontal nudity in a kid.. you are crossing a very fine line.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pmlibtard naivete
August 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pmGee, how self serving. I want, I want, I want.
A 5 year old is comfortable? What about when she is 16.
What a retarded mother, and I use the term mother lightly.
Growth pictures can be taken with the clothes on, they don’t need to be nude.
At the least this woman should not be using a child that isn’t old enough to know better or give consent.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:23 pm