Turns out, under Iowa law, if I pull a Janet Jackson in the middle of the Des Moines Art Museum, it’s perfectly acceptable. Just so long as I decide to disrobe in any “theater, concert hall, art center, museum, or similar establishment which is primarily devoted to the arts,” according to Iowa Code 728.5. Public, indecency laws don’t apply.

OK, maybe just as long as I’m dancing. Hey, it’s art. And I’m a consenting adult.

But if I were under 18, it looks like that would be all right, too. Judge Timothy O’Grady set the precedent this August. He ruled in favor of Hamburg strip club Shotgun Geniez, where in July 2007 a 17-year-old girl stripped off her clothes and danced on stage. Gives a whole new meaning to “dangerous curves.”

According to the Associated Press, the state court found that a theater exemption applies to Shotgun Geniez. Because it, of course, is a place devoted to art. I mean, they give their patrons sketch pads and sell posters, which probably embody only the most tasteful work nudie mags have to offer.

Of course, whether or not the strip joint is in fact a place for art is irrelevant, as far as the case goes. The girl was 17. Another portion of the same Iowa Code 728.5 states that if an owner “allows or permits a minor to engage in or otherwise perform in a live act intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires … of the patrons,” he or she will be found in violation of the law. I don’t know how naked this girl got, but if a minor “exposes to public view [his or her] genitals, pubic hair, or anus,” the owner of the establishment can be found guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor. Neither case lets the owner off scot-free.

The twisting of art’s definition to suit your own purpose undermines all artistic endeavor, particularly in this case. However, a lot of twisted things have been done over the years in the name of art, often including events that smack of child pornography. Last year, for example, we had what’s been termed as The Dakota Fanning Rape Movie. Maybe it was meant to start a discussion about the issue, but no one would touch the movie, partially because its subject is so controversial. Especially those scenes which feature two half-clothed 12-year-olds making out. That’s art, right?

As far as I know, however, they weren’t dancing in the movie. So if you have a stage, any form of underage nudity is all right in the name of art.

Well, pedophiles — you know the ones we see on Dateline and wouldn’t let near our children — would agree.

Honestly, I can believe the Dakota Fanning thing. It’s California; it’s Hollywood; it’s hard to be shocked. Although we still should be. But this is Iowa. If our laws are so vague that we can say underage exposure is OK, which we basically did, then we have a problem.

According to the AP, Assistant Attorney General Mary, the city of Tabor, Iowa is “seeking a review” of Judge O’Grady’s ruling. We should also seek a review of the law that allowed that ruling to happen. The law needs to be clarified so that every judge that sits before a case like this has to protect the side of the minor. And not just the minor that might have made a stupid decision. Ruling against the strip joint would protect all minors. Ruling in favor leaves them at risk in future cases.

A child’s body is not a piece of art. It’s sad, but we apparently need stronger laws to make that clear.

— Bailey Lewis is a senior in English from Indianola