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:
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 10 years old nude photo. Censored. The above photo was removed from the art gallery in London.
|
You pedophiles want to see the uncensored photos?
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,
- Border arrest & instant jail for owning DVD with young looking 19 year old porn star. Any honest citizen risks jail
- Dangerous pedophile hunters threaten harmless pedophile
- Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.
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
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
Children are not fully sexually developed at 12-14 years old. Any true doctor in his right mind would tell yoi that. Sounds like you’re trying to justify sleepimg with children, rmax. In the middle east, girls of that age are dying during children because their bodies arent ready to take on the role of adult women. Without medical care, thry die and agonizingly painful death right along with their babies. Why? Because theyre bodies aren’t fully prepared for childbirth. Let children be children without trying to oversexualize them!!! I hope you and the others dont have children…
Rmax…there is somethimg seriously wrong with you and people who support this trash. Why do you find a need to see pictures of naked children? Is it to feed your sick perverted hungers? There is no reason these pics need to be taken or shared.
Brooke has no sexual features? How about a vagina to start with. In some of the pics, budding breasts can be seen so whats your point?
Pedo are only imterested in 3-4 year olds? You must be brain dead to honestly believe that. Do your research before making such a flawed comment.
12-14 are adults? In what world? They’re sexually,physically, and mentally immature and not capable of living without adult supervision. You must really like little girls, eh? Science proves the human brain isn’t fully mature until the age of 25 and you want to slap a label of adult on 12-14 year olds? You’re absolutely disgustimg. Children need to be protected from you and anyone who supports this mess.
This is a sickness and you people are sick.
The scientific definition of pedophile is attraction to pre-pubertal girls and boys. There are other terms for other attractions, all the way up to gerontophile, liking old age people.
Now 12 to 14 year old people, for most of the 100 000 years of human history, started building a family and working at about age 14. There was no adolescence where 16 year olds wasted their time idling or playing around.
I also always repeat that the main issue here is: does government need to interfere? They don’t even interfere when pregnant women drink alcohol, which causes grave birth defects. So is there compelling reason they need to interfere if someone looks at photos of 14 year old Brooke Shield?
Tammy needs to realise theres nothing sexual about an undeveloped girl
The 10 year old brooke shields, has NO developed sexual features to be turned on by
This is why its perfectly fine to display a 10 year old, theres nothing there to be sexually turned on about …
Also Zvarri is right, paedophiles are only interested in 3-4 year old toddlers
Paedophiles are only interested in under developed infants & toddlers
12-14 year olds are adults, as theyre fully sexually developed
First I will just say…Zvarri- you are a sick, twisted individual. Second, I never knew about Brooke Sheilds posing nude as a 10 year old and now that I see it, I am disgusted by it! It’s wrong, wrong and just plain wrong!
For thousands of years statues and pictures of naked boys and girls of age 14, 5, 1 were depicted by artists, even on public squares, in water fountains. Pictures of a naked new born Jesus caused no uproar.
Sensuous photos of topless 15 or 16 year old girls were standard not only in Playboy, but on page 3 of the tabloid Sun (Samantha Fox). Pedohysteria and criminalization of sensual adolescent pictures are a thing of the last few decades.
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.