Some are dploring the Benson furore and others are railingagainst fergusson.Some have actually argued that fergusson has done histime and should be free to enjoy another chance.Some have goneall academic and pointed out to the growing sociological interest in primitive societies that had a special place for the expression of pubescent sexual mores and recognised the rights of the tyoung to them. The argument has hovered around the suggstion that we should allow ourselves to evolve new sexual mores for the emergence of a new world sexuality. The rantings get clever and permissive.

Ok. The issues are very complex and in the meanwhile we have to be patient and more understanding about Fergusson and others of his ilk.Parents who have little ones to protect may be retarding the evolution of the Brave New World whose prophets like Fergusson are the forerunners ...

We are mixing up the issue of the Olympisa and the Fergusson and Barbie dolls et al...
I dont think so! What we are doingis losing track of whowe are,of our sense of decency and balance and settling for lasciviousness and celebrating the animal in us whilst intelluctualising the issues.

The pseudo-sophisticates are up against the naive and simple human beings.

socratease

How many times can you flog a dead horse with this topic.

As much as these discussion on OLO and the media have been distracted by disingenuous debate it comes down to whether or not under-age children should be used in 'art' in sexually suggestive poses. As the first poster on this thread stated, it is about context.

And to reply to one of the posters above, these groups have protested about the sexualisation of children in the media - print, music clips and television.

There is a sense of unease at how an artist or a parent for that matter, could use a child in this way or for political point scoring, even though I am sure they believe strongly in their right to do so.

pelican>"There is a sense of unease at how an artist or a parent for that matter, could use a child in this way or for political point scoring"

The only people "using" the child are those promoting their censorship agenda through a witch hunt and reactionary politics. The child is happy with the work, but the reactionists and authoritarians in society (including our politicians) are telling her she is 'disgusting and immoral', or at least dismissing her opinion as irrelevant. Nothing more could be dehumanising than doing that to a child. Those attacking her are the ones harming and politicising the issue to promote thier private agendas. None of this should be anyone's concern except the child and her mother's. And both assert that they are happy, albeit damaged by the idiots and do-gooders who did them public harm.

Hear, bloody, Hear, Steel.

At one level I can understand Johnston's motivation. Her daughter was molested by her father-in-law and anyone faced with that is likely to be a tad upset over children's sexualisation. And I think it was inadvisable, to say the least, for Henson to have his recent work exhibited and for parents to let their children be the models.

However, I worry that society gets worked up in a lather over sexualised images of children (and we're not talking child porn here) compared with our reaction to images of dead children. I've seen graphic images of dead children on TV and although you get a warning that "some viewers may find these scenes disturbing", the usual, vocal and self-appointed child protection groups seem rather quiet.

The other thing is that it seems that girls way more than boys are sexualised in the media and popular culture. True, child pornography includes abuse of boys as well as girls. And boys have experienced terrible abuse over the years. But it appears that girls' bodies are more marketable whether in photo exhibitions or music clips.

To the Editor,

I notice that this thread has been subjected to some intervention by yourselves. I would expect that where censorship is applied, it be made known and an explanation offered.

I invite your response here and now.