Considered and defined properly, the anachronism appears actually from Henson, Papapetrou and their ilk, as well as from their pedophilic and otherwise decadent supporters, or merely naïve and gullible dupes.

Legal and bureaucratic protections against child abuse are relatively new innovations in the concepts we describe as “civilization” and “human rights”. In European history, such activism only appeared to effect powerful changes from the time of the Industrial Revolution; various exploitation and other abuse of children was apparently even more rife in that era, unchecked by legislative activism and the development of foundational and state social security obligations.

Developing countries have had to confront more of this revolting phenomenon as part of the wretchedness brought by unfair application of “free trade” and strategic designs of major powers concerned about their own dominance, or at least unchallenged advantages. It is well known that socio-economic, and legal and other institutional, weaknesses in such developing countries have attracted those afflicted by the pathology of pedophilia – whether as a market demand spawning child prostitiution or its de facto advertising medium of child pornography.

Further back, the Roman republican and imperial ages left us much evidence of yet more widespread abuses of children, sometimes even appearing as a normalized activity practised by slave owners and others among Rome's powerful; Suetonius in particular conveys just how casual and normalized pedophilia seems when reading ancient Roman texts.

Therefore, efforts to legalize or validate child pornography – however such porn may be stylized and marketed - merely aim to normalize such abuse of children as practised in societies less concerned for their cruelty or depravity.

IamJoseph

I fail to see the relevance of the gay community to this particular debate.

However, rather than leave unsaid that which might clarify a philosophical position

I personally consider gay practices to be “abnormal”.
However, I am tolerant of the “abnormal”.

Or to put it another way, I find the range of human behaviours much like a bell curve of population, with abnormals which exist, naturally and predictably, beyond 2 and even 3 SD from the mean of “normal” human behaviour (at each end of the population spectrum, one of which maybe where you ‘reside’, with gays at the other end).

In short, we live in a diverse world (and not one of singular, monolithic values).

As for “Gay is not a moral/ethical issue, nor a free choice one”

That is a strong and absolute presumption

I would observe, the range of individuals identifying themselves as “Gay” is very broad and will include the bisexual as well as homosexual. Likewise, the incidence of bisexuality might be a once off or a regular pursuit, which would suggest opportunity to exercise “free choice” and the decision will, in many cases be conditioned by an individuals ethical and moral values, making it “choice” predicated on ethical/moral values and thus a “moral/ethical issue”.

Similarly the style and types of relationships which exist among heterosexuals is diverse.

The monogamous and polyamorous,
A relationship founded on a mutuality of respect versus dominant / doormat one
The vanilla versus the S&M
a thousand others and each classification existing with varying hues / degrees of intensity, polarity.

And you think they all follow your view on laws?

Wrong

You would be lucky to find a small minority who supported the exact specifics of what you slavishly believe we must all do.

So, we get back to your take on things and a support in the law which you presume exists.

Regarding Henson, I see a lack of prosecution or legal activity, which would support a notion that it is your presumption which is erroneous.

So, “...a lack of prosecution or legal activity” on Henson, Papapetrou et al is now meant to prove some validity – true legitimacy - for such soft-core artistic kiddie porn? This thread looks to have gone the way of the other one on this subject (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7463&page=0). Cornered by the various absurdities of their position, the Hensonites hide behind “The Law” in Oz.

Thus does that self-advertised “challenging, taboo-breaking, anti-authoritarian, progressive avant garde” expose its true cowardly, regressive and bourgeois-smug nature. In such fashion do Hensonite proclaimers of “free expression”, “individualist free-thinking” and supposedly liberalist vigour eventually, but inevitably, find themselves skulking in the swampy intellectual, moral and ideological cul de sac that their shallow, unexplored claims and arguments promised. In that vacuous position can they resort to little more than a meek, obsequious pledge to “cheerfully obey their (decadent baby boomer) parents, teachers and the laws”.

Of course, UK law offers the obvious relativist pursuit after such an undignified retreat; Australian law is, after all, a direct offspring of the English model and its precedent, while the judiciary in this monarchist country has in many ways preserved aspects of such old law now deemed anachronistic in the UK.

But when we address that fact – emphasizing how Henson, Papapetrou et al would be doing serious time if in the UK - that's the point at which the Hensonites take one final step back and chant “oi oi oi” while saluting the Oz flag.

Then, if “the law”, its minders and rich oligarch-sponsors proclaimed a special taste for say muscular, fascist and homoerotic sculpture, or even household furniture and ornaments made from human body parts, we should only expect Hensonites to respond warmly to any such genre of “daring” and “challenging” work too.

Hensonites should ask themselves: are they scoundrels – or degenerates?

You people are seriously obsessed with this stuff.

And I'm not talking about Col Rouge, for a change :)

Indeed, I completely endorse his essential arguments in this case, if not necessarily his way of putting them, as is his wont when he gets a bee in his bonnet.

The obsession seems a lot more with the defenders of these artist who exploit kids.

So this is where the hysterics, prudes, wowsers and other assorted philistines are taking us:

<< 'Prudish' council bans nude artwork entries >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/27/2347993.htm

No doubt the religious nutters and other sexually repressed types will celebrate this return to the 1950s.