Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 9 June 2008 10:18:02 AM
_____________

I feel no need to put anything further than the post I'm responding to. You astonish me! I am amazed at the manner in which you have deliberately referred to me in the third person, and still maintain it's not personal!!
CJ, I don't like the way you have diminished and denigrated anyone who did not support Hensonart;-and I told you so.
That DID lead to personal attacks form two of you, and now JB has joined in!

Other than to defend myself and indicate what my motivation was, I wasn't very keen to attack you. it's quite simple. With the exception of this matter I believe I have agreed 100% with your point of view. It therefore doesn't make me comfortable to have a shot at you personally.

I will defend myself though,-and that is what I have done.
Given that you appear to be a fairly smart cookie;-I'm gobsmacked that you have also criticized me for not elaborating on my motivation.

I cannot. And frankly, I believed that someone like you would have understood why. (That is meant sincerely).

I too am leaving OLO, directly AND indirectly because of this matter. I guess I will return in the fullness of time. OLO is a damn good forum. BUT; I AM distressed by the fallout, no question. I need to be back on my own forum, which is far gentler, and does not have the cut and thrust that we all need from time to time,..that OLO has.

Before I go however I will start one more thread that is buzzing in my head at the moment. I am composing it off forum in between current commitments.
________________________________________________

Posted by Jayb, Monday, 9 June 2008 12:00:42 PM
__________

I have absolutely nothing to say to you in reference to this post.
Specifically because of your response to huffnpuff.

Hi To All The Forgotten Australians

Victims of institutional abuse while under control of the state in their state run institutions , orphanges ,girls homes, boys homes, state ward homes, remand centres, state run church homes, church homes , foster homes , out of home care , the list can go on ,

im gladd that a lot of you agree with me of what ive wrote

no doubt we all have our own opinion about those such photo's henson took

so the law says it is ok for him to do this

so where is the use of any law for the purpose of protecting our children

you are not allowed to take a photo at school of your child playing sport

and as for the comment about the beach you see more

well that is not true as everyone wears swimmers

unless you are at a nudist beach.

just like i said not one of you replyed to my question

would you allow your child to have their photo taken no one has said

yes or no

so their must be a lot of heads rattling as to how to answer that question

why isn't bill henson putting his own comment in on this debate

as all his friends are speaking for him , or those in the same industrie as he ,

or people who have no respect for our young chidren

i honestly think that by having a thing like this take place

has now allowed and let the gate way open for the pedophiles out in our society to use this as a legal loop hole for their crimes

so in other words the law says its ok to do this

so therefore every jo blow can take explicit photo's of children what a F_cking joke the law is

don't we have child protection laws for such things as this

disgrace disgace on those who potray our children as sex objects as this is my opinion

from a real victim of the forgotten australians

we will no longer be forgotten

regards huffnpuff

runner, you state that "it is obvious that porn appeals to the depraved part of human nature".

Child porn, yes, I'd agree. Not standard porn.

Do you honestly regard sex as depraved?

I tend to think it's a healthy part of human nature. Heck, I rather enjoy it in fact and why should I be afraid to admit that? Why on earth should I consider it depraved?

So if you don't regard sex as depraved, is it a) just sex outside marriage you regard as depraved, or is it sex that is filmed?

Are you okay with married couples taping their own sex lives and watching it? Is it only others watching it? Is it just the unmarried? Is it just the idea of it on tape, or depicted?

How does a depiction differ from the act, aside from being a mere image of the reality? Is it the act of viewing porn?

Or is all this talk of discussing the 'depraved' too unsettling for you?

And you've been asked repeatedly - do you regard michaelangelo's David as 'depraved' as well? Is it porn?

It's clear you don't just regard child pornography as bad, it's all pornography - so I'm intrigued as to your basis for this. Even Ms Johnston doesn't regard adult porn as being evil (she states as such in the ABC article, and I for one regard Ms Johnston's stand on the Henson exhibit as wrong, but not hypocritical, because adult and child porn are different issues - though I don't regard the henson exhibit as pornographic).

I ask you yet again - consider the more complex issues here, rather than the kneejerk reaction. Do you regard michaelangelo's david as porn, or depraved?

Rstuart “You caught me by surprise when you implied runner was female.”

Re your point, thankyou, I stand corrected. :-)

Runner I implied no dispersion when I previously presumed you to be female.

Maybe it is just that runner's posts always seem to carry the tone of a frustrated and bitter old woman.

Runner “At what age does staring at nude boys and girls arouse you? Is it art at the age of 13 but then porn at the age of 16?”

Personally, I appreciate and enjoy the female (mainly in her curvaceous form) and would say Dolly Parton’s cleavage ranks prominently among the places I would like to set my head to rest (I can at least dream), far from the ironing board flat chest of a prepubescent 13 year old girl or boy (at any age).

You see, some of us have the intellectual capacity to see the difference between art and porn.

Personally I enjoy both, for different reasons, although prefer "erotica" more than "graphic displays of humping" and the only time I ever had a problem in confusing the two was when I attended my very first life drawing class at the tender age of 17.

I recall it as a moment in time when, with hormones running in overdrive, the purity of my artistic endeavours were simply overwhelmed upon seeing a comely 30 year old lady enter the room disrobe and reclined naked, before me.
Ah what memories return, she was the first of many (naked ladies in my life) but those are tales which i will regale you with another day (too much for a mere 350 word limit) :-)

Firstly, thank you to all the kind remarks concerning my initial post on this thread. I must remark that these were tolerable (but by no means excusable) to some rather more extreme acts of physical violence I was subject to. I understand that this was not necessarily the case with others.

huffnpuff,

Apparently like myself you've had some experiences as a state ward in a religious-run institution. However evidently we have different points of views of the Henson issue.

When I see Henson's photographs I see adolescent nudes with artistic merit. I agree with the OFLC which stated that the images are not sexualised in any degree. I do worry about those who do seem them as sexualised.

In answer to your question, would I allow a child of mine to have such photos taken? My answer - as was the answer of the parent's of those in the photos in question - would be 'yes'. Other people would answer 'no'. Some people would be comfortable about it, others would not.

Under no circumstances would they be without the consent of the guardians and the subjects in question. That simply wouldn't be right. I think that's where the line lies with taking photos of sporting activities.

UNCRC

You have claimed that Henson's photographs would be illegal in London (I can only presume that you mean the UK). Are you sure, and can you prove that? I raise this issue because in the past movies have been distributed in the UK with nude and topless adolescents (for example, various films of Brooke Shields).

runner,

At some stage I think you should realise that nudity in itself is not a sexual context. In order for anything to be considered pornographic it requires a sexual context. Are you seriously asserting that this was present in the Henson images? If you do, why do you think that others share this perversion of yours?

'I am amazed at the manner in which you have deliberately referred to me in the third person, and still maintain it's not personal'

Amazed? That's vintage CJ. Perhaps you need counselling too, you did disagree with him after all:-)