Henson's kiddie fetish material is classified as child pornography in London, The Tate Gallery has stated that Nobuyoshi Araki does pornography, and so there you are.

"The little girl is in there along with bondage images, including one of a Japanese schoolgirl in school uniform trussed up in rope while another image shows an adult woman also trussed up, with breasts and genitals exposed."

it is that context thing.

"Hetty Johnston and Bravehearts are but one part of an apoplectic surge in seeing s*x in everything."

The short answer. "YES"

"There is no need to go so far, as some men’s groups suggest, of seeing Johnston, as in the words of a publishing collective, “part of the greater feminist push to see men stigmatised as child abusers … and that used against them by women to retain custody in family law disputes”."

Short answer again. "Oh yes they are."

"One can only speculate what they will find next: a curiously inappropriate use of children with teddies on advertisements for real estate perhaps. Be wary, Mr Hooker."

I agree.

I seems strange but I haven't heard anything from them about preteens being pushed to wear, "pushup bras, sexy outfits, listen and watch to sexual music videos on Saturday mornings, wear make up or get plastic surgery, etc." or even kiddie photo, in their underwear, in the Kmart/Coles/Woolworths catalogues.

The author is conflating two radically different concepts by framing them together as a pair. The community outrage over pedophile Dennis Ferguson can not be lumped in with the outrage over the Henson/Olympia photos. They are totally different.

The only connection is that they both concern children and sex. However, one is concerned over the potential safety of children living within proximity to a convicted pedophile. The other is concerned with the perceived sexualisation of children in our culture.

Regardless of how hysterical the Carbrook community response is, it is a response to a real concern. By contrast, the Henson/Olympia issue is about the rights and responsibilities of those who control the public domain. At its heart is the philosophical dilemma of whether a culture has the right to portray a certain issue within the public domain to such a degree or in such a way that others in that culture (for whatever reason) do not want.

And as for comments like this:

‘Enter the obsession with sexual innuendo, sexual imagery, the dark forces that say more about the accusers than they do about the accused’

As the official 'accuser' of this essay, doesn’t the author realize that this actually says as much about those who automatically default to wowser-bashing during debates about public sexuality and nudity, as it does about the supposed wowsers themselves.

"At its heart is the philosophical dilemma of whether a culture has the right to portray a certain issue within the public domain to such a degree or in such a way that others in that culture (for whatever reason) do not want."

Try not to bend your logic so much, thanks. Society is bound to find someone or something offensive. Look at actual control and discrimination, such as religious people's controls of censorship and gay marriage for example.

The Henson furore and witch hunt was WRONG, period. It was a political, agenda-driven campaign against our society.

Steel

Tell me something I haven’t heard before … a thousand times.

'Society is bound to find someone or something offensive.'

So why all the hysteria over an offence that’s ‘bound’ to happen? Going into hysterical, huffy overdrive whenever anyone expresses offence at portrayals of public nudity and/or sexuality is its own form of ‘control and discrimination’ – every bit as censoring and behaviour-controlling as any antics by the religious Right.

‘The Henson furore and witch hunt was WRONG, period.’

But the pro-Henson furore and witch hunt was RIGHT?? I see. So ... having God on one's side is one thing, but having Art on one’s side means never, ever having to be wrong.

In the example of gay marriage, a group of citizens are being controlled and oppressed by another group. They have no right to marriage, because OTHER people don't want them to (including both our major parties who changed the constitution to discriminate against them). This Henson furore is similar in that a similar group (probably from identical roots) are trying their hardest to control a different subset of citizens. The model was happy with the pictures and both her and her mother consented. They are being oppressed and controlled, against their will and wishes.