Pelican, if you want to know why some of us who defend art and freedom of speech get a little acerbic, just refer to Paul.L's latest nasty insinuation above, and the idiotic runner's conflation of art featuring nude models with pornography.

As I said in my last post in this thread, I think that most reasonable "critics seem to be uncomfortable at suggestions that the child models are being 'exploited' in some way by the artists. This is an argument with which I personally disagree, but at least it is one that is arguable within the parameters of our prevailing social, ethical and moral standards."

According to the odious Paul, that means I have something in common with paedophiles. I really couldn't be bothered arguing with idiots who consistently attempt to misrepresent my views the way he does, or with religious nutters who endlessly preach their peculiar beliefs at everybody else.

SJF,

I think you missed the point of my comment, I was not upset that others expressed their concerns and anger, I am angry at those who think that they have the right to force their puritanical views on everyone else.

Charges being laid against the artist due to political pressure (which had no chance in hell of sticking) and the moron of a woman who threatened to have me arrested for taking photos of my kids in costumes on the beach are two such instances.

Pelican and others, if you think that young girls are completely sexually unaware, and only at the age of 16 (18 in the USA) suddenly wake up to the birds and the bees, you obviously don't have daughters. I have to battle tears when I try to limit what my 12 year old wears to parties.

I fully intend to protect my kids against paedophiles, and the blue rinse brigade who want to control what they think.

"I have to battle tears when I try to limit what my 12 year old wears to parties."

This is very much part of the concern that many feminists and others have with this whole issue of photographing child nude models in the art world. It's not so much that it's inherently harmful in itself, but it's the way it feeds into this whole issue of the premature sexualization and exploitative marketing of young girls, which in turn is leading directly to the battles you're facing with your daughter.

I've been through exactly the same thing with my own daughter. I know how difficult it is to see a young girl unhappy with her natural girlish looks and desperately wanting a look that is far beyond her years and which she's not at all equipped to deal with. We have to ask ourselves why it is that young girls today are trying so hard to break out of girlhood and present themselves as sexually alluring at such a young age.

It hasn't happened in a vacuum. It's the inevitable result over many years of constantly being fed a certain look through the aggressive use of subtle and all-pervasive marketing. Over time this insatiable beast has targeted ever younger girls until today we have the ridiculous situation of girls as young as five or six wearing heels, bra-tops and makeup.

Instead of wringing our hands helplessly, we should be looking more broadly at how we have allowed this to happen and start doing something to give our girls back their childhood. Questioning the art world's practice of photographing young girls in adult like poses and artificially enhancing the images to present a conformist look is for me just part of that process.

"I fully intend to protect my kids against ... the blue rinse brigade who want to control what they think."

We're not wanting to control what you're daughter thinks. We're fighting against the forces who have already taken control of her thinking. We're trying to give girls back the freedom to think for themselves and to enjoy being girls.

pelican: "I am just a bit tired of the lack of substance in the arguments by the pro-Henson/Olympia lobby"

I have not seen anybody make that argument, but if it were made I would take your side.

pelican: "All of us would agree that a parent should not use their child in pornography ... [we] are merely disagreeing on where to draw the line and what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate."

This is a pretty deceptive way to make your point. You say we are "merely disagreeing", implying the solution is obvious. I presume its obvious because all of us agree we "should not use their child in pornography". So you imply the argument is about the use of children in pornography. It isn't and that is why we aren't "merely discussing" it, we have been arguing about it for 40,000 words now!

For me at least its not at all about where to "draw the line". Its about how do you decide. Do you decide by having a straw poll on who makes the passionate appeal to the raw emotions. Or do you decide or a more rational basis, based on whether the child has suffered harm?

Deciding on a rational basis is much harder to do. It requires you to put your feelings aside for the sake of others. Here is a scenario making this clear. Lets say some dirty nasty paedophile got hold of a picture of your child naked, and masturbated to it. Lets further assume doing that relives some pressures in his twisted mind, and so the neighbourhood children were safer for a day or so. I presume the thought disgusts you because it certainly disgusts me. But can you put that aside pelican? Can you say to yourself, "well no one was hurt and possibly somebody was saved", and pronounce what happened to be good thing?

Do you care enough about what actually happens kids to put your feelings aside? It's no idle challenge pelican. That scenario is reality. Your gut is wrenching in disbelief, but do you care enough to check?

Bronwyn,

People have been complaining of the sexualisation of their daughters for generations.

Small girls are not stupid, and are sexually aware from a young age. While I think the media plays on this, they did not create it, and if they are stopped, it is not going to go away.

While not entirely happy with the world, I would prefer not to allow the well meaning moral majority to erode the freedoms that have taken so long to establish.

CJ

I do understand the angst at being labelled a paedophile (or implied) and I hope you have some experience of my earlier postings to know that is not my own perception. I am only responsible for my own postings and cannot influence others, all we can only hope for is name calling can cease in deference to reasonable debate.

The debate has become more emotive than need be for some reason. As I said earlier there does not appear to be much room between wowser or paedophile which has distracted from more reasonable debate on what constitutes Art (which is a subjective) and should Art have any responsibility in terms of freedoms/rights as sovereign over all other rights.

rstuart

You appear to have labelled me in the extremist camp which I am not and my reference to child pornography was not deceptive given the debate in the media became one about whether the art in question constituted pornography. I was not responsible for the 'nature' of the debate as it unfolded.

You have totally missed my point - which was about where to draw the line in Art and obviously that is where opinion comes in, there are no DEFINITES in this debate just opinions based on the sort of society we might wish to live in (accepting that nothing is of course perfect). That does not mean that I view those who offer a contrary view as bad or evil.

Your comment: "Do you care enough about what actually happens kids to put your feelings aside? It's no idle challenge pelican. That scenario is reality. Your gut is wrenching in disbelief, but do you care enough to check?"

Feigned outrage does nothing for me I am afraid. My whole viewpoint is about caring what happens to kids and the sort of world that allows them to be children while at the same time not padding them in cotton wool; allowing them to experience and grow as their maturity, awareness and level of empathy allows. Sexualisation of children too young does not fit in with my own personal ideals.