The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Moral acceptability > Comments

Moral acceptability : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 3/6/2008

Whether it is to make money or a name for himself in the art world, Bill Henson is using children to further his own ends.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
Yep, it seems like a silly argument to me. jpw2040 makes a bunch of valid points that refute it.

But it is still an interesting article. Rather than calling for Peter Bowden to crawl under a rock, I’d encourage him to keep contributing articles to OLO.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 9:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ultimately, I don't think Aussies like wowsers very much. Back under your rock, Bowden - come back in 50 years."

This is an uncharacteristically cheap shot on your part, CJ. Peter has outlined an interesting and useful philosophical framework and in so doing has provided a fresh look at what is now a well-worn debate. I don't think he deserves to be dismissed as a wowser, not to mention being told to get back under his rock!
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 10:29:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK - I was a bit harsh on poor old Bowden.

But really, the article is rubbish - the "philosophical framework" is trite, selective and cartoonish.

Do try again, Peter - but try adding some substance beyond the fact that, fundamentally, nude kids offend your sensibilities.

It's really not a good argument, Bronwyn. All the flummery about "protecting children" with respect to this issue only serves to obscure the real issue with Henson's detractors, which is their own discomfort with sexuality in general.

On second thoughts, Bowden needn't have come out from under his rock. He really hasn't contributed anything new or useful.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 10:45:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bronwyn, it's an aggressively worded shot, but i'm not sure it's a cheap shot.

if the guy's not a wowser, i'm not sure how he ended up proposing such a silly argument. ignoring the philosophy history fluff, his argument implies that children cannot be "used" in any manner. that's such a self-evidently dumb conclusion, i feel no desire to fish how he got there.

but i don't think it takes much fishing. he says children have "virtually no say". that is absurd. separate from the legal issue of consent, children obviously have a say.

i'll give you a hypothetical. supposed we had evidence that henson's child models actually hated the photographing, were crying and were brought to henson kicking and screaming. do you suppose in that situation the henson-bashers wouldn't be using that information as a moral club?

of course the children had a say.

my conclusion is that CJ is right, that bowden is a wowser, who decided his conclusion and came up with what argument he could, dressed in nice philosophical clothes.

unfortunately i disagree with Cj on his other point: history says australia does like wowsers, and i don't see any sign of that history ending.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 10:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,
I think your article is brilliant. I made some comments on this topic under the "society condones child abuse" thread, from my perspective "at the coal face" - a nurse listeneing to the stories of abuse victims.
Posted by Helen54, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 6:56:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the difference between canvas and sculpture in the world of art?
Havent we all seen the statue of David? That's full frontal nudity, by the way. My, my,he IS well hung,as a matter of fact.Does that mean women and gay men have been sent away with crotch tingling excitement about to commit acts of gross indecency?Then we should insist under daks be put on to him where ever he is to be found exhibiting his male glory so BRAZENLY.Shame.shame.
And what about all those disgusting statues of chubby little lawbreakers in gardens and garden centres peeing into the fountain.
I mean where does all this stop?
socratease
Posted by socratease, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 2:41:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy