These posts have confirmed how every person justifies their own perversions. Peter Hollingsworth must feel agrieved that the same people who called for his head( for political reasons) now defend the right of artist to strip young boys and girls, display their genitals and call it art. Those charged and shamed for taking photographs of clothed people on beaches and filming up womens skirts at tennis matches must be wondering what is wrong with their 'art'. The latte left are completely blinded to their own hypocrisy. They honestly believe they are beyond corruption. If John Howard perves at a women he is a deviant. If Mr Rudd perves at a stripper he is admiring art.

Runner's typically idiotic comment actually raises what may be a salient point: in the torrent of sanctimonious objections to Henson's images I've seen, from those who identify as Christian at OLO and elsewhere, they seem to share an appalling ignorance of art.

How else could you write something as pricelessly stupid as this:

<< If John Howard perves at a women he is a deviant. If Mr Rudd perves at a stripper he is admiring art. >>

For a start, if John Howard "perved" at a woman it'd be a case of mistaken identity (of JH!), while when Rudd "perved" at a stripper it was an act of hypocrisy. In neither case is "art" anywhere to be found.

Are there any Christians out there who will defend Bill Henson's art?

CJ Morgan writes

'from those who identify as Christian at OLO and elsewhere, they seem to share an appalling ignorance of art.'

If refusing to perve at naked 12 year old naked girls and boys is 'an appalling ignorance of art' I would rather stay ignorant.

I wonder if runner has ever seen the sculpture of David? There used to be a copy on display in Surfers Paradise.

If so did runner "perve" at it, turn away embarrased, or look and appreciate what an incredible sculpture it is?

I've not see the original but have see the copy along with a variety of other art portraying naked human beings of all ages and for the most part it was not "perve" material but there was some mighty fine portrayals of human beings in it.

Perhaps if I was looking at the painting portrayed in the Sirens film I might take the opportinity to perve but for the most part that's not what arts about.

I'd not want to "perve" at a naked 13 year old either but I might appreciate a piece of art that said something about that stage of a humans development. Sometimes I'm ignorant but where thats the case it's something I seek to overcome, not a life preference.

R0bert

If this is the "debate we had to have", then why no comments from Hetty. Sounds more like "the broadcast we had to endure".

Go and find some genuine paedophiles to hassle and leave artists alone. I feel sad for those that can't tell the difference.

Runner “These posts have confirmed how every person justifies their own perversions”

I am wondering what perversion runner is justifying,

From her post, I could suggest dogmatic intolerance;

Maybe blind stupidity;

Likely bother the above,

And super-sized with a helping of chronic bigot.

Unsupported blind criticism, is runner’s perversion. She alone has a view and anyone who disagrees with it is denounced as a pervert.

“display their genitals and call it art.”

Tell me runner, what you think of the paintings of Botticelli and Caravaggio or the sculpture of Persius by Cellini ? I have seen the original ones. Likewise I have viewed the laser copy of David in Surfers Paradise and the original in Florence.

Share with us your views on Florentine and Italian renaissance art and how the display of 16th and 17th century Italian genitalia differs from contemporary “wedding tackle”.

“If refusing to perve at naked 12 year old naked girls and boys is 'an appalling ignorance of art' I would rather stay ignorant.”

Have no doubt, we are all marking you down as a having achieved your wish in that respect.

Sams “I feel sad for those that can't tell the difference.”

Those who cannot tell the difference are adequately represented here, replete with ignorance and bigotry aplenty.