Jump to content

The Stupidity of The Sun


Recommended Posts

Look at this and tell me, do YOU find it sick? cos what i see is a pick of a baby and thats it. If i saw it, say, in a photoframe in someones house i wouldnt be shocked or think they must be a pedofile, id think aaw what a cute baby. How irresponsible of the sun to attach this meaning to it.

 

Look:http: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003272362,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I have to disagree. I don't find it offensive but it's hardly a dignified pose for the poor child. Can't think what the parents are thinking of allowing it to be printed.

 

Perhaps Kitty you aren't aware of just how much pedaphilia there is around these days. As a mother I am (sadly) constantly on the lookout for things which may be putting my children at risk.

 

Would you like to be photographed sat with your legs wide open :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but only if that person was a pedophile or thought of it that way, it might be a strange taste in pics but not SICK. I think its quite cute. Wouldnt have it up in my house personally but its still quite cute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by "Mo"

 

Sorry but I have to disagree. I don't find it offensive but it's hardly a dignified pose for the poor child. Can't think what the parents are thinking of allowing it to be printed.

 

Perhaps Kitty you aren't aware of just how much pedaphilia there is around these days. As a mother I am (sadly) constantly on the lookout for things which may be putting my children at risk.

 

Would you like to be photographed sat with your legs wide open :cry:

Yes im aware, but i still dont find this picture sick its just a little baby, weve all seen naked babies before and usually people find them cute to look at. There is the odd few who find it more than cute, but why cater to their weird, sick ways and find it sick ourselves. Surely its the pedofiles who are sick, not the kids the lust after?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a very fine line these days to cross..

Unfortunately, my opinion is that this picture crosses those lines, since it is almost advertising a market for that kind of thing..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it's the Sun at fault? If it hadn't been for them then this debate would not have started. It's up for auction as a piece of art and would not likely to have come to the attention of anyone other than those interested in it as a piece of art. Now that it has been exposed to a larger audience it has become something completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with the photo. Aren't there still seaside postcards featuring naked infants with their bits on display?

 

A lot wrong with anyone who finds it sexually exciting, they should be undergoing psychiatric treatment (When I'm not in my usual wet wishy washy liberal mood I might suggest psychiatric treatment involving electrodes attached to their genitalia but I wouldn't really mean it).

 

Something wrong with the Sun for reprinting it - I expect they want a re-run of those near public lynchings of rumoured paedophiles (which included a paediatrician 'cos the people were to thick to know the difference). That kind of thing sells newspapers.

 

Maybe something wrong with us getting indignant about it - to some extent classifying naked babies as porn makes some social inadequates think it is porn. It's a bit like when we banned legitimate ownership of licensed hand-guns for target practise - the result of the ban was that now there's a much more active black market and the same guy that can get you a target pistol will also offer you a kalashnikov and if you ask nicely he can probably lay his hands on a rocket launcher.

 

And there's lots more to worry about - what about erotic underwear for pre-pubescent girls? What message is that broadcasting? It's down to parenting, I'd not want my child photographed naked (to preserve his dignity and not infringe his rights) or clothed in an erotic manner, or fully dressed but in a suggestive pose.

 

The photographer (and presumably the child) is Dutch and public nudity for all ages is more acceptable there than here. We Brits have a bit of a problem with some confusion about nudity and sexuality, we can't cope with the concept of the Scandinavian mixed sauna either - Well I've been there and done it and there is nothing remotely sexual about nudity in that context. Its a body, we've all got one, get used to the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.. the fact that in todays society we cant see a picture of a baby and link it with sex is disgusting really, and if the sun were so bothered about it.. why publicise it? And of all papers to moan about nudity too ... this coming from one that shows pics up celebs skirts and nude women on a regular basis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there some guy a couple of years ago who took his photos of his young child to be developed at Boots and because there was a photo of his child naked in the bath, the person working there phoned the police...? (I'm sure I read about that when the papers went throught that phase of accusing everyone of being a paedophile.)

 

The thing with art is that it's always being misinterpreted. If there was a naked woman sat with her legs spread, some would say it was art whilst others would say it was pornography... and some people would treat it as art and others would be aroused by it (I guess). It's just the same here... but it's more sensitive because it's a child (and therefore would be illegal if it was pornography).

 

In my opinion, it's not sick by any means - but in the wrong hands it might be viewed in an unacceptable manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.