SJF, I don't have a clue what point you are trying to make.

SJF: "Like the boy who cried wolf, crying ‘censorship’ every time some individual or social/political group expresses distaste or offence at some aspect of the prevailing culture ..."

When I read this, I assumed you were saying you aren't arguing the art in question should not be banned, you were just saying its bad art.

SJF: "Secondly, the premise that ‘all art must be allowed, good and bad’ underlies much of the thinking of the pro-Henson/Olympia side of this debate."

When I read this, I can only assume you are wanting the pictures to be banned.

So what it is, SJF? We presumably have established you don't like the art in question. Fair enough. Some here have said they do like it, some like you have said they don't. But are you also saying it should be banned?

As for the rest of you post - was there a point to it? You mention two things - how art is funded, and who likes it. I don't see how those things are relevant to whether art is good or bad, and I don't see they are relevant to whether it should be banned or not. Unless its coming out of the public purse, its funded the same way everything else is funded - the people who liked it paid for it. It wasn't coming out of the public purse in this case, so I presume that is what is happening. If you or some group doesn't like the stuff, then go fund your own. Doing that would be a dammed sight more productive than whinging here about people paying for stuff that you don't personally appreciate.

But if your intent isn't just to complain about what others like, but instead about banning it so they can't see it - well yes, that's significant. But if that is what you are on about then for gods sake just come out and say so!

If he agrees with this article/author (whose history is even more damning...) then he most likely is wanting it to be banned. That is where this is going (and certainly the intentions of this feminist) which is why I made a discussion about it in the General forum.

rstuart

You’re desperately trying to get me to declare myself on whether these pics should be banned, when I honestly don’t care one way or the other.

What I care about is the thoroughly misguided belief that there should be absolutely no boundaries at all – legal or otherwise – on the work of those who wield influence over the cultural domain or over public opinion. This sanctity-of-the-artist defence is in itself a form of censorship.

Steel

What YOU are doing is censoring the dissemination of any kind of feminist analysis of the society in which we live.

I am proud to say that I would very much like to live in a society that does not feel a need to eroticise virtually every aspect of women’s existence. Neither YOU nor anyone else is going to shame or intimidate me into thinking otherwise.

SJF: "You’re desperately trying to get me to declare myself on whether these pics should be banned ..."

No. I am desperately trying to understand what concrete actions you think should be taken. So far, I have failed dismally.

SJF: "What I care about is the thoroughly misguided belief that there should be absolutely no boundaries at all – legal or otherwise"

I am happy with any boundaries that aren't legal ones. If you are arguing for the same thing, then we have nothing to argue about. But I have no idea if this is the case because you won't tell me! Ahhhhh!

SJF: "sanctity-of-the-artist defence"

Actually, I don't care whether the person claiming the defence calls themselves an artist, a pornographer or a paedophile. I don't care whether what they have to say is intended for inspiration, titillation, illumination, or masturbation - its utterly beside the point. If what there are doing can't be shown to be harmful, then let them do it.

SJF: "is in itself a form of censorship"

You did it again. I must be getting dimmer with old age. For the life of me, I can't see how letting someone express themselves can be a form of censorship. Can you explain it, in simple terms that I have a hope of understanding?

SJF>"What YOU are doing is censoring the dissemination of any kind of feminist analysis of the society in which we live."

Wait..my comments in this thread...... are censorship...of "feminist analysis"? I've noted this mentally.

Anything but. I'm calling it out and exposing it's corruption and sexism that extends well beyond 'benign' forms of feminism (what it's purpose was and what every moderate feminist is tricked into convincing themselves is what they represent).

SJF> "I am proud to say that I would very much like to live in a society that does not feel a need to eroticise virtually every aspect of women’s existence. Neither YOU nor anyone else is going to shame or intimidate me into thinking otherwise."

At least you are honest in your admission.

You and Melinda represent anti-female feminists, much like Islamists who desire to have women fully clothed and non-sexual. You are winding back society and saying women of any age can not exhibit themselves and be paid to express themselves, as evidenced right here:

SJF> "I am proud to say that I would very much like to live in a society that does not feel a need to eroticise virtually every aspect of women’s existence."

Society is doing NOTHING to you. This is what free choice is about. Now that women have the freedom they deserved they are choosing sexuality which is making many feminists attack women and men at the same time under the guise of victimisation. This of course makes socialists, fascists, and religious natural allies in their (and your) campaign.

Now this has nothing to do with the photographs, except in that it exposes the agenda behind the opposition to them is the same as I've described previously in many other threads and which SJF in a laudable moment of honesty confessed to here (in her own words).

You have either been fooled by feminists such as tankard SJF, or you are one of them yourself.

Rstuart

Good grief! Your post to me would have made the Grand Inquisition very proud.

(Loud booming voice) ‘Are you now …. Or have you ever been … a supporter of censorship? Do you now … or have you ever … wanted to ban the Henson photos? … Declare yourself, I say!’

(Gulp!)

And if I choose to remain silent, what next? Guantanamo Bay or the rack?

Steel

Yes, I’ve read ‘Cassanova for Dummies’ too.

If you honestly believe that unfettered freedom of artistic expression has turned the female population into a mass movement of grateful little sex kittens, then no wonder you’re so hostile to feminism.