Brooke Shields, now 44, posed for a nude photo when she was 10 years old. Now Richard Prince’s photograph of the picture, called “Spiritual America,” has been yanked from a major exhibition at the Tate Modern. If pedophiles didn’t already know about “Spiritual America,” the Richard Prince photo taken of a nude, heavily-made-up 10-year-old named Brooke Shields, they do know. London police made headlines by yanking the photo from an exhibition at the Tate Modern after child exploitation groups protested, saying it could be a “magnet for pedophiles.” nj.com So what if it becomes a magnet for pedophiles? What if 300 pedophiles crowd into the art museum’s room to see the picture? What damage would be caused?We have so many real problems in this world. Why invent non-existent problems about a 32 year old photo of a now 42 year old woman?I see more damage in this violent, but legal, movie:

“If you are using a picture of a naked child to bring people to your exhibition, then you are exploiting that child,” Michele Elliott of the child advocacy group Kidscape tells the Daily Telegraph.

How does that child get exploited? If she were not famous, she would not even know about the art gallery. In this case, she probably even got paid. And why that be exploitation? And what is the problem of being thus exploited? Will she lose money, health, time?

Oh, dignity? Well check the dignity of the kid that is being clubbed to death, on prime time TV:

Feminists repeat the same stupid drivel (“picture of naked child is exploitation of the child“) over and over, until people actually believe their nonsense. This never ceases to impress me. Feminist stupid talk has magical qualities. No matter how stupid, no matter how unfounded and baseless, it becomes public policy and profoundly convinces press, police, law makers, the United Nations assembly, and supreme court judges.

The same exploitative photo was in Playboy in the 1970ies or 1980ies. We can see the horrendous damage that has been caused to Brook Shields and to millions of readers of that Playboy edition. She must still be a wreck today at 42 years of age.

I guess all people over 40 who have seen these and similar photos, are probably totally screwed up. They did not see only this one photo, but photos of nude 12-16 year olds were routinely in newspapers (page 3) and in youth magazines like Bravo or on the cover of prestigious German news magazine “Der Spiegel”. (23. May 1977)

Be careful, if you collect such magazines, you might get a 15 year jail sentence for possession if child pornography! Be afraid, be very afraid.

brooke-shields-nude-10years
Brooke Shields 10 years old nude photo. Censored.
The above photo was removed from the art gallery in London.

Wet Gold, USA 1985, Director: Dick Lowry.  Brooke Shields, Burgess MeredithYou pedophiles want to see the uncensored photos?

If you like this photo to the right, you are a “hebephile”, you like adolescent girls. Nowadays this is, on purpose, confused with pedophiles (pedophiles like pre-pubescent girls)

  • Below: Cover of most prestigious new magazine of Germany. May 1977. Nude.  Today this constitutes child porn.

Der Spiegel May 1977 Lolita Issue. Censore to avoid Child Pornography charges and to avoid corrupting my blog readers. Of course, there were hundreds such photos on other magazine covers. The entire Germany, a nation of pedophiles!? Or today, a time of witch hunts?!

An entire nation of pedophiles: Millions - adults, children, babies - saw these photos (uncensored in complete nudity) in public news stands all over Germany in 1977. Imagine the terrible damage to the entire German population and to the girl. Any scientific literature available that discusses the damage from this heinous crime of exposing the poor victim? Of course not!!!

Child porn showing a baby's genitals and urination

Clearly visible genitals, urination of an infant child. A heinous crime: the statue needs to be destroyed. Everyone responsible for this monstrosity needs 25 years of jail. Until recently, the world was unaware of the damage caused by such despicable criminal art.

A very nice discussion with examples of child pornographic art from major art museums, worth millions of dollars follows

“It’s as if they are using a 10-year-old girl for bait. I find it disturbing and they should be ashamed of themselves.” nj.com

They are not using a girl as bait. There is no girl there. The kid has grown and is 42 years old now! They are not exposing a girl, they are  exposing a 30 year old photo.

There are so many things I find much more disturbing. For example,

And there is real, proven danger to our children, that destroys the health of our children by the millions, causing premature death.

If they use 10 year olds to feed their junk food to, to increase their corporate profit, then they are exploiting that child. I find that disturbing and they should be ashamed of themselves.

The Australian Childhood Foundation said parents had no ethical right to consent to nude photographs being taken of their children, as it could have a psychological impact in later years independent.co.uk

Depictions of nude children What psychological impact will a nude photo have in later years? More stupid drivel Not a shred of proof!

On the other hand, obesity will have psychological and physiological impact in later years. And parents have no ethical right to consent to fattening a child on junk food and sedentary life style.

Artist defends children’s right to pose nude

Henson dismissed the criticism that his young subjects were unable to consent to modelling nude.

He also claimed that posing for his photographs was less harmful than engaging in contact sports [ ... ]

In his Melbourne speech, he disputed the idea that his child models had been exploited. “Kids do consent to all kinds of significant things all the time. A 10-year-old can consent to something that might otherwise be unlawful assault: dental work. In this state, a 15-year-old can consent to a sex change. Children’s consent plays a major part in divorce proceedings.”

Henson – whose photographs are in Australia’s major public collections, as well as New York’s Guggenheim Museum – said there was no evidence that life modelling caused physical or psychological harm to children. By contrast, he said, a 12-year-old boy playing football could “find himself in a wheelchair” for the rest of his life.
nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10663618

So true!  More here human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog

Receive an email notification whenever Human-Stupidity.com has a new post.

One Comment

  1. Zvarri says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    Magnet for pedophiles? This is fucking ridiculous!

    Just look at these photos. Tons of makeup, slutty poses, “sexy” clothes… Pedophiles DO NOT like this crap! How the HELL is this a magnet for them? (yes, “them”. I’ll just pretend I’m not one, so I can give my opinion without being insulted).

    Seriously, all this stupidity is fucking killing me. All these with-hunters deserve to die, goddamit! Even my own family and friends believe their bullshit. BLIND RETARDS, ALL OF THEM.

    Sorry for the rant, the bad words and the possible grammar mistakes. English isn’t my first language.

Leave a Reply

 Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog (no spam, unsubscribe at any time) 

Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog
Receive an email notification whenever Human-Stupidity.com has a new post.
Email: 
 
Mailing list powered by Google Feedburner. Every email contains an unsubscribe link. You can unsubscribe at any time. Human-Stupidity hates spam as much as you do.

 Subscribe in a reader      Follow us on twitter