argyle wrote in post #6086699
Topless infants/toddlers are cute...IMO, twelve years old is a bit too late to be considered an infant or toddler.
True, but artistic nudes of youth have been around all through history with no puerile intent ascribed to them. There have been a number of photographers in recent years who were charged with child pornography for their artistic images. One was Jock Sturges another was David Hamilton. There was also the case of Sally Mann.
In all three of these cases there was controversy about their subjects. Jock Sturges was indicted, but the grand jury would not approve the charges. David Hamilton's works have long been the center of controversy and from Wikipedia "In 2005 a member of the Surrey Police in Britain wrongly claimed that possessing Hamilton books was now illegal in the UK. Surrey Police were later forced to make a formal apology for the incorrect and unsubstantiated allegations made by Detective constable Simon Ledger (see: British Journal of Photography, September 2005), and admitted that no legally binding decision had been made on the work of David Hamilton."
In Sally Mann's case, her books caused controversy when she first published a book entitled At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women. In her next book, Immediate Family, she primarily photographed her own children as they were growing up including nudes. To my knowledge, she was never charged with anything.
To many, many people in the world, nudity is a natural state and life in a "textile" world is unnatural. Other people see evil intent anytime skin is on display, no matter what the age and think their standards should be the norm for the rest of the world.
