Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Look at the pictures in this gallery: mathewlove.deviantart.com/gall… - What's your opinion on them? 

29%
388 deviants said I see naked toddlers in suggestive positions. I don't enjoy these works but they are not against DA policy.
17%
235 deviants said Clearly child porn. It should not be tolerated on DA.
17%
230 deviants said I can't see how this is art. It's distasteful. I would report them and move on.
15%
200 deviants said The creator is a sick pedophile, a child molester. These pictures should be removed and the deviant banned.
8%
102 deviants said These are cherubic cartoons, they are part of classic art. No sane human being would consider them pedophilic.
7%
98 deviants said Other.
4%
53 deviants said Naked kids with wings. So what? Don't be so moral and prude!
3%
36 deviants said What should be wrong with them? I don't see anything erotic here.
1%
10 deviants said I like them.

Devious Comments

:iconthe-suns-moon:
the-suns-moon Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2010  Student General Artist
With the exception of the cherub tied up and the kiss, I don't see anything really sexual about it. It's stupid yes. But cherubs are often depicted naked. Of course, the cherub tied up should be banned. That's bordering on pornographic and thus pedophilic.

And calling him a child molester because of those pictures is immature and presumptuous. People shouldn't do that. Just saying.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2010
Have you noticed that dA doesn't care anymore? That you can post anything you want and get away with it? I don't see why the report button is there anymore. Just a waste of time...
Reply
:iconnicklepops:
nicklepops Featured By Owner Jul 18, 2010
i hate it
Reply
:iconjessicablood:
JessicaBlood Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2010
lol at how so many people don't consider someone laying spread eagle with his head back on his arms, winking, sexual at all.
Reply
:iconegil21:
Egil21 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2010
I don't understand why calling attention to this gallery...for me, this artist was a ghost.
I don't watch mature content and sometimes I feel uncomfortable, because I'm looking for flowers, writing "flowers" on the search bar, and it pops a vagina or penis because the photographer uses the word "flowef" to name the photo.
These drawings don't disturb me, really. I'm more disturbed by this guy's favourites...

I would prefer not to go there. I didn't read the poll's options, so I was mislead...It won't happen again.
Reply
:iconsemi-crazy:
Semi-Crazy Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010  Hobbyist
No, this shouldn't be appropriate and should definitely not belong here. I'm rather disgusted with the stuff that many artists post on ere to begin with. It's disgusting and the allowance of this type of art has the implication of condoning molestation and pedophilia.
Reply
:iconcrazyquesadilla:
CRAZYQUESADILLA Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010
Quoting the comment I made on his page,
"
Okay. So here's what I think about this.
For one, freedom of artistic expression is the main export of deviantARTland. That's awesome. While I don't particularly enjoy these pictures, I appreciate the fact that they can be posted.

... on the other hand. His favorites don't show that he's doing this for artistic expression. One is a picture of a naked baby, the other is a picture of a really feminine guy posing naked. These favorites don't help his case.
He watches three accounts, all of which are plz accounts: ~shotacatplz, ~finlandrapedfaceplz and ~Icameplz. The fact that he has only watches plz accounts (sexually themed plz accounts, even) makes him look like a troll.

Moving on... I am sick of these motherfucking unsubstantiated accusations in this motherfucking page. All these people calling him a terrible child rapist who needs to die... where is your proof? Did he post pictures of himself raping babies, and I just didn't get here in time to see the proof? Did he note any of you guys telling you about how he loves to molest children? What? He didn't?! Then how do you know that he is a child molester? "oh, he drew some cherubs" Okay. Cool story bro.
Drawing pictures of cherubs makes you a child rapist just as much as drawing pictures of Naruto makes you a kawaii ninja.
"
Reply
:iconlauriehouse:
LaurieHouse Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010
I'm on the fence about this. They are not children becasue they are cherubs, but cherubs are little children in a way. Or something like that. Its the tied up pictures that get me....that just over the top...too much. def. pushing the boundaries.
I'd like to see it removed.
Reply
:iconannamaetezuka:
AnnamaeTezuka Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
There's very little that I know about cherubs in art, but I do seem to remember them being depicted as mischievous, sometimes in somewhat adult ways. I could be recalling something wrongly, I never really studied art history, but while these are borderline creepy...I remember having the same feeling with some definite art cherubs. Again, this could be some imagined memory softening my view, but I don't quite see this as child porn.
Reply
:iconarmonah:
Armonah Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010
Why did you put "Toddlers in suggestive poses" and "not against dA policy" in the same category? Toddlers in suggestive poses are against dA policy:

"Works depicting the likenesses of real children, whether painting, sketch, or otherwise, will be held to the same standards established for photographs of underage models.

Minors below the age of eighteen (18);
••May not be photographed in any bondage or sadomasochistic scene or manner of dress.
••May not be photographed in any clearly sexual or alluring pose.
•••This applies for both clothed and unclothed photographs."


There is maybe one deviation in there that doesn't at least break one rule, and that's "Kiss".
Reply
:iconlilyas:
Lilyas Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010  Professional General Artist
These toddlers are meant to be cherubs and therefore they don't violate DA policies. I didn't make the rules.
Reply
:iconarmonah:
Armonah Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010
The rules don't say anything about that though.
They simply state that "characters depicting the likeness of real children" (which these cherubs are) that are obviously underage should not be in suggestive poses, bondage, etc.
Reply
:iconlilyas:
Lilyas Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010  Professional General Artist
I am not a native speaker but when I read "likeness of real children" then I understand "likeness of children that really exist" and not invented characters. I might be wrong.
Reply
:iconthegreatmc:
TheGreatMC Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2010
Technically, drawn likeness of real children represent non-existent individuals as well - which is used as a chief argument wielded by supporters of drawn CP.

Problem lies with the fact that drawn likenesses of children (either those existent as a species or 'merely' using the form of a child) - when subject to blatant and purposeful sexualization, which operates on means of expression that remain MUCH unlike putta's from renaissance and beyond, are meant to propell and perpetuate desires of pedophiles.
Reply
:iconarmonah:
Armonah Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010
I thought that the rule was laid out like that to include anything that's obviously meant to be human, even if it's not (photo-)realistic, so that the rule would include other artforms, such as manga (which has a rich subculture of sexualizing underage kids).

But you could be right as well, I'm really not sure anymore.
Reply
:iconanuksut:
Anuksut Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010  Hobbyist Writer
Oh my god! I am definitely reporting all of his deviations!!! >:[
Reply
:iconthegreatmc:
TheGreatMC Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2010
Sadly, $chix0r has already announced that she is not going to take down those images anytime soon. Her choice to guard that plight with her own reputation - and the reputations of fellow employees who chose to support her claims - will only serve to worsen the situation.
Reply
:iconanuksut:
Anuksut Featured By Owner Jul 21, 2010  Hobbyist Writer
I find that extremely pathetic.
Reply
:iconperegrijn:
Peregrijn Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Maybe it's just me, but I see some irony in these pics. They make me laugh :D

Looks to me it's a huge "wink" to christianity, with all their childabuse in the news lately
Reply
:iconcrazyquesadilla:
CRAZYQUESADILLA Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010
So didn't notice that. He's probably just a troll, but that would be some nice undertone.
Reply
:iconperegrijn:
Peregrijn Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Yeah, well, that's what I see in it. But I'm wondering what the guys real motivation is off course. In any case, personally I think people everywhere (not only on DA) make a fuzz to soon about anything... My opinion
Reply
:iconlilyas:
Lilyas Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010  Professional General Artist
Good point! :thumbsup:
Reply
:iconperegrijn:
Peregrijn Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Thnx, and I'm actually very disappointed that hardly anyone sees it like that. Did you ask his motivation?
Reply
:iconlilyas:
Lilyas Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2010  Professional General Artist
No. He is not talking very much and he doesn't seem to take interest in the conversations we have over his work.
Reply
:iconperegrijn:
Peregrijn Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Ignorance is bliss...
Reply
:iconaldreich:
aldreich Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010
yuck >_<
Reply
:iconana-happy:
ana-happy Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010  Student General Artist
I don't know way but I think that pictures are really funny :) !!!
Reply
:iconmadeleineruuth:
MadeleineRuuth Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
I don't enjoy them, and they seem too "simple" to actually be taken seriously, prude or not... It feels a bit immature and stupid, really... but that's just my opinion...
Reply
:iconbackwardbruises:
BackwardBruises Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2010
I agree completely =/
Reply
:iconsilverdragonrs:
silverdragonrs Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010  Student General Artist
Many people draw cherubs... they and yes they ARE usually nude... but rarely are the genitals showing in such a way! Cherubs represent love and romance... not sexuality or lust... to associate a child image with these ideas is both gross and to many people offensive. It should be removed from DA!
Reply
:iconraven-maniac:
Raven-Maniac Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010
I see the workings of a man who is expressing himself albeit some be a bit risque no it is not child porn.Art has Always been controversial ever since the venus de milo,and crucifying someone for expressing him or herself is both wrong and rude.Now some of you may see him as a child molester but did you talk to him about it?Did you ask him why he draws cherubs?Noone looks for a reason to place blame they just look for the place to put it.
Reply
:icondarkgloomynights:
DarkGloomyNights Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010
Ditto
Reply
:iconraven-maniac:
Raven-Maniac Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010
Thanks.
Reply
:iconmidnight-dance-angel:
Midnight-Dance-Angel Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
They're cherubs. Traditionally depicted as children, naked, with wings. I see nothing wrong with these personally. I mean, if we can submit works of nude adults as drawings, why not cherubs? Seriously. And for that matter, I've seen art of cherubs in such positions before in professional galleries, so I don't see anything wrong with this really.
Reply
:iconsilverdragonrs:
silverdragonrs Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010  Student General Artist
You have scene cherubs tied up in a professional gallery? Where I gotta see this!
Reply
:iconmidnight-dance-angel:
Midnight-Dance-Angel Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
Tied in some form yes. And in provacative poses as well. I don't remember the name of the gallery, but it was pretty interesting to see.
Reply
:iconsaiyanprincesscat:
saiyanprincesscat Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
:\ I'd report them...it's just gross. I don't care what a collective policy about this is; this is my personality and the way I think. It's incredibly immoral.
Reply
:iconshelldevil:
shelldevil Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010
I looked, I was somewhere on the fence, disliking but dont totally hating. Then I noticed his 2 fav's.... and that pushed me over the fence and into wtf aint this dude banned?
Reply
:iconaowyn77:
Aowyn77 Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
I second this person's comments 100% and will add the following:

I didnt really see a choice in your poll that totally expressed my feelings with this. Based on my own personal taste, I look at what I like and favourite those pieces. THOSE I consider "art". I do not feel I am the person to say this is art and that isnt. HOWEVER, these particular drawings do push my comfort levels quite a bit. Add to that the person's favourites and I start to scratch my head and get uneasy. Drawing cherubs is one thing. Anatomically correct and specific cherubs is anoter. Putting them in intimate positions is, in my opinion, going outer limits.

I think DA should review this person's gallery and those that he/she linked to and decide what their stance will be. Up to this point I have seen all kinds of things on this site that have opened my eyes and mind to different perceptions and media to express oneself. This particular display and those like it take away from DA, again in my opinion, and what I understood the purpose of this site to be. It makes this site smutty (is that a word? We'll allow it here) and soils the integrity of those using the site.

Artistic freedom is one thing but hiding behind that to post borderline porno-cherubs and "photography" as seen in the links in the favourite as examples is sick and abusive.
Reply
:iconlilyas:
Lilyas Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010  Professional General Artist
All of those pictures have been reported multiple times and I think DA admins reviewed the gallery more than once. The decision on their side was clear.
Reply
:iconaowyn77:
Aowyn77 Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
That is too bad.
Reply
:iconmrswave:
MrsWave Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010
i think that is sick! they should be ashamed of themselves!
Reply
:iconforbiddenrace1:
forbiddenrace1 Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Naked cherubs is one thing (since most are depicted as such) but these are in some suggestive positions which makes it closer to drawn pornography
Reply
:iconlilith-illageatte:
Lilith-Illageatte Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
They look a little too much like toddlers for my taste but they don't exactly violate anything. I certainly wont be looking at them.
Reply
:iconkisskisscutie:
kisskisscutie Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010
Well, I take it as how the artist sees it.

If he sees it as a metaphoric thing like the cherubs are innocence or whatever... or if he sees them as CHERUBS... OR if he sees them as little boys.

But in all, I would say that THIS is a way better alternative for him if he crave pictures of naked little boys.
Reply
:iconaumen:
Aumen Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010
Meh, I kind of like them.
They remind me of those cool old-style gigantic painting you see in museums or churches. :3
I can't really say that they're gross cause then I would probably have to say that those cool ones with angels and such are gross too. :/
Reply
:iconjessicablood:
JessicaBlood Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2010
You don't think a baby spreading his legs and showing you his little cock while winking is gross at all?
Reply
:iconaumen:
Aumen Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2010
If you say it like that, it makes it even worse than it is. S:
But I guess you're right.
That is pretty friggin' repulsive...
Reply
:iconappaloosapinto:
AppaloosaPinto Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
What makes me want to report him is the fact that the poor 'commissioner' was dragged into this.
[link]
Reply
:iconlilyas:
Lilyas Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2010  Professional General Artist
I know. But as long as Iceriel doesn't take action on that matter the man can say what he wants.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 

Poll History