well, one of my points is that nude photos are OK.
**and How many nude photos does there have to be to
> make it not ok?**
pornographic photos are NOT OK. I happen to think that
there is a difference. I have taken nude photos of all
of my children as babies and posed for figure drawing
classes and private sessions for my husband. One if
the nudes my husband painted of me was even shown in a
public galley....Should I be fired? Am I immoral? Do I
need to report myself as a child pornographer? Or do I
only cross the line if I put the photos/ paintings on
the internet and my students see it? Or if they happen
to go to the art gallery where the painting is hung
and then they tell their friends...is that when I
should get fired?
I will stand corrected about her name being on the
photos if it was... When I type in Tamara Hoover I get
her myspace.com and some other stuff, but I did not
find Celesta Dangers' flickr site where the photos
were originally posted.
**At the very
> least, we should be
> extremely sensitive to this issue of sex and kids.**
We cannot be so sensitive that we do not produce art,
participate in art or allow others to do so. We cannot
take away or give away our freedoms to make sure that
no child sees nudity. (nudity= sex?)
Someone on one of these lists mentioned the National
Geographic in one of our discussions on nudity once
upon a time. It seemed very smart to me to bring up
that magazine where I know I saw my first naked man.
(I had already seen a woman because my mom was
horrible about walking around nude...she should have
probably been imprisoned for exposing me to such
Anyways, what I am saying...is should every third
grade teacher or librarian with a subscription to
National Geographic be fired for exposing "children"
to nudity? Or is there a difference in that type of
nudity and others?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around