Speaking of sado-masochistic pornography Melinda herself belongs to a would be world conquering cult that has a sado-masochistic image at the very centre of its existence and ideology.

And is now celebrating this perversion in Sydney with reams of media hype.

That of the tortured broken body of Saint Jesus of Galilee---which is advertised as "good news".

This reference sums it all up very well.

1. http://primal-page.com/gibson.htm

This film was very much part and parcel of the propaganda promoted by the charming outfit called Opus Dei. The star attraction at the current "festival" in Sydney is staying at an Opus Dei retreat centre.

I have read this article and a can understand the view, but all I keep thinking about is 'David'. Would David be in existance if this view was to penetrate society? We need to leave art as uncensored. We can not put restrictions on it, like we so like to do in all aspects of our lives. And with this flexibility to express ones self in art, we will always be faced with reactions that can sometimes be uncomfortable and evoke negative emotions, but that is also one of the points of artistic expression.

Poor old Melinda's starting to sound a bit shrill lately. Like Bill Henson's artworks, the images in 'Art Monthly' have been cleared by the official censors.

If Melinda doesn't like this kind of art, she is free to avoid viewing it or purchasing the magazine. She is also free to voice her opinions about it. That's the virtue of a free society, where educated and sophisticated people are able to live together with wowsers and philistines.

In her article, Ms Tankard-Reist raises a number of important points about the relationship between art and ethics. These points do need thorough discussion, and yet they seem to have been lost in the debate about Henson. This has been largely a rehash of the creaky old 'art/porn/censorship' debate, and has been mostly devoid of significant feminist insights about the insidious nature of sexual exploitation.

What feminist and pro-feminist writers (I fall into the latter group, as a male) need to constantly dois distinguish their criticisms from those of social conservatives who see ALL representations of nudity and sexual expression as bad, wrong and sinful. Tankard-Reist favourably quotes Andrew Bolt, a hard right-wing Melbourne columnist who is definitely NOT famous for his support of feminism!

What ALL of us need to now do is consider the ways in which children and young people CAN be represented in art and the media. It is one thing to criticise sexualised representations of young people. It is another, perhaps more complex task to suggest an alternative to such representations.

Spare me!

Gee Melinda...don't you know that 'artists' are so much more refined than the rest of us and are able to enjoy pictures of sexualized bound schoolgirls in non-sexual ways. How dare you not want to let them take part in their exploitive sexualized pictures of young children. You must be a real wowser and philistine to dare speak about such elite cultural messages.

Obviously, as the censors have said it was okay, it must be okay. After all no-one ever complains when censors say something is not okay. Especially not people like Robert Nelson.