Vegas Sculptor’s Blog

It seems that for most of history it has been an accepted fact that people were going to have sex. Most ancient cities that are unearthed have brothels in them. Communal baths were the norm. Nudity and sex were a fact of life.

It has only been in recent times, it seems, that we have tried to outlaw sex and any depictions of it.

Today prostitution is illegal in most places. Premarital and extramarital sex is frowned upon, and pornography is blamed on everything from the breakdown of the family to rape.

I’ve always found it amusing that the anti-pornography crowd seems to think that men become hormone-enraged rapists after viewing porn. I would have thought that pornography would provide an outlet for sexual tension that would prevent men from seeking a less acceptable outlet.

A report in The Chicago Tribune seems to support that view. According to the Tribune, “… in the last two decades, we have conducted a vast experiment on the social consequences of such material (porn). If the supporters of censorship were right, we should be seeing an unparalleled epidemic of sexual assault. But all the evidence indicates they were wrong. As raunch has waxed, rape has waned.”

“Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent. Even in the last two years, when the FBI reported upticks in violent crime, the number of rapes continued to fall.”

This in spite of the fact that the internet has provided easy access to porn for everyone with an internet connection. “… the United States alone has a staggering 244 million Web pages featuring erotic fare. One Nielsen survey found that one out of every four users say they visited adult sites in the last month.”

“How can it be explained? Perhaps the most surprising and controversial account comes from Clemson University economist Todd Kendall, who suggests that adult fare on the Internet may essentially inoculate against sexual assaults.”

“In a paper presented at Stanford Law School last year, he reported that, after adjusting for other differences, states where Internet access expanded the fastest saw rape decline the most. A 10 percent increase in Internet access, Kendall found, typically meant a 7.3 percent reduction in the number of reported rapes. For other types of crime, he found no correlation with Web use. What this research suggests is that sexual urges play a big role in the incidence of rape — and that pornographic Web sites provide a harmless way for potential predators to satisfy those desires.”

Still, the anti-pornography activists continue the attack. “‘Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice,’ wrote feminist author Robin Morgan. In 1986, a federal commission concurred. Some kinds of pornography, it concluded, are bound to lead to ‘increased sexual violence.’”

With the decline in rape nationwide, the Tribune concluded “If expanding the availability of hard-core fare doesn’t prevent rapes, we can be confident from the experience of recent years that it certainly doesn’t cause such crimes.”

So what do you think? Is porn so evil that it must be eradicated? Could it, in fact, be the cause of the lower incidence of rape these days? Does it alarm you that the Nielsen survey found that one out of every four internet users visit porn sites, or are you like me and think 1 out of 4 is probably a bit low?

Among the recent headlines was one concerning a photo owned by musician Elton John. The Reuters headline was “Seized Elton photo judged not indecent”.

It turns out that the photo, from Elton’s collection, was loaned to Baltic gallery in Gateshead, U.K. to be included in an exhibit of the work of photographer Nan Goldin . The management of the gallery sought the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as to whether the photo was indecent. The photo was seized while an investigation took place.

The photo was entitled “Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing” and one of the little girls in the photo was naked with her legs spread. A censored version of the photo can be seen here (probably not safe for work).

The photo had been the subject of an investigation in 2001 when it had been exhibited in the Saatchi gallery in London as part of the “I Am A Camera” exhibition. At that time the photo was judged to be acceptable for public exhibition.

The question now was, have standards changed enough since 2001 to make the photo indecent in 2007? According to the Reuters article, “Kerrie Bell, head of CPS Northumbria’s South Unit, added: ‘In order to prove that the photograph is indecent we must be satisfied that contemporary standards of propriety are so different now to what they were in 2001, that it is more likely than not that a court will conclude that the photograph is indecent. I am not satisfied that is the case.’”

Having been a fan of photography for most of my life, and an amateur artist, this story got me thinking about the whole subject of nudity in art.

Many of the great artists of the past used the nude figure in their work. Many of these models were in their teens, many were only children. Nowadays however, we seem determined that women/girls are only allowed to be sexy if they are 18 years old or older. This ignores the fact that as little as 50 years ago, most women were married by the time they were 18.

Many contemporary photographers have used young models. Among them are Jock Sturges and David Hamilton. Mr. Sturges and Mr. Hamilton as well as Ms. Goldin have many books that are readily available online. If these artists can sell their books as well as their photographs, why are they still subject to inquiry as to the decency of their work?

If “standards of propriety” change, is it right to confiscate privately owned artwork? Is it right to file charges against the collectors who own these works? And what about the models? How old is “old enough” to decide to pose for an artist?

When I lived in Santa Fe, New Mexico I met an artist who was quite well know for his nude paintings. A neighbor of his had a daughter who wanted a painting of herself nude for her 14th birthday. Her parents asked this artist if he would let the girl pose. After much discussion between the artist, the parents, and the girl, the artist agreed to do the painting. The girl was quite pleased with the painting and, as far as I know, has suffered no long term harm from posing. The artist appears to have suffered no harm as well since he didn’t become a child molester from being exposed to a young nude.

So, when it comes to nudity, does age matter? When it comes to art, does age matter? Isn’t our opinion of nudity/sexuality based more on adolescent reaction to Playboy magazine? Aren’t most of us capable of putting nudity into its proper context? By that I mean, we are able to control our impulses and limit sexual actions to suitable partners. Do you think that all nudity is obscene, or only nudity involving children? Is there an age at which nudity becomes acceptable in art? For that matter, is nudity art? Is nude photography art?

As adults we see children nude all the time after becoming a parent. The majority of us change diapers, give baths, and dress our children and never have sexual thoughts about it. For that matter, I don’t know many parents who haven’t seen their child running around naked and envied that ability to be perfectly at ease with one’s body. If it’s possible for the average adult to view nude children without becoming a child molester, aren’t we going overboard by trying to outlaw all images of children?