Lev,

You seem a master at ignoring man's depravity. You are obviously blinded to the fact that if you took these pictures you would be charged by police. You comparing naked animals with naked 13 year old girls is deceitful or a demonstration of your ignorance of law and decency. Your defense of porn would leaves me to think you have a vested interest.
TRTL

If you want to defend people who take photos of 13 year old girls naked in the name of free speech you have the right to do so. I also have the right to call your view perverted along with the artist and every paedophile who calls this pornography art.

Ah, but runner, ask yourself - are you providing any kind of real insight?
Sure, you can flick any number of insulting comments my way. Given that I've so vociferously defended people's right to free speech then yes, I suppose that comes with the territory.

I suppose I could just as easily flick all manner of insulting comments back your way, but really, where would that leave us?

I'd argue for starters that if you were indeed going to call someone 'perverted' you'd have to establish that they were indeed interested in such imagery, and for perverted reasons at that, rather than a very widely held belief that government interference in personal choice is a dangerous thing.

But I suppose that requires a little more introspection, consideration and thoughtful comment, and a little less by way of self-righteous barely literate hateful smears, but hey.
I guess that's your interpretation of a Christian attitude.

You people admonishing Henson disgust me.

TRTL

You defend your right to defend the indefensible ( an obvious outcome of no absolutes). I defend my right to call any view that promotes child porn as perverted. I am amazed you take such offense.

TLTR “Ah, but runner, ask yourself - are you providing any kind of real insight”

A fair question TLTR. My observation, runner has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of intellectual prowess needed to vocalize the real argument.

Instead she relies on a smash-and-grab approach to debate.

Other folk who do similar are commonly called “trolls”.

If it posts like a troll and it reasons like a troll, then it must be a troll (repeat offender type).

You see the same mindless parroting, as an inferior alternative to reasoning, among the Christian fundamentalists who actually believe the Bible is the literal world of God (King James Version only, of course) or live in fear of being excommunicated incase they 'think' more independently than the Papists allow.

runner,

I am quite aware of man's depravity. Most of seems to be performed with religious justifications. Crusades, Jihads, The Draconian Ordinance, Nazi-Christian Judenhaas, the child-rape factory managed by the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, and all those murders who say "God told me to do it"... and so on.

So when you concentrate on nudity and media of sex between consenting adults, rather than those genuine depravities I will gently mock this obsession of yours. In particular your confusion between nudity and pornography and perhaps even more so, your extremely strange sense of casuality.

According to your reasoning, Rembrant's painting of his son, Titus, should have been illegal as the boy is nude. "La Fornarina" by Raphael, should also fall under the category. The impressionist Mary Cassat also, Henry Scott Tuke, the contemporary photographer Frederick Monsen, Edward Weston, Ruth Bernhard and Jerry Avenaim..... and so on - up to an including every Australian parent who has a photo of their children nude in a bathub as a babe.