Mr Right.>"I now know that anyone who disagrees with Steel is either a religious zealot or ignorant. As a person who cannot answer a question without being rude and derisive, nothing you say can be taken seriously or treated with any respect.""

Your comment is very deceitful. If I'm to believe you actually take so much offence at some descriptive adjectives, then you should stop posting your opinions on the internet and save yourself the grief.

Does this mean you ignore 90% or so of the posts and posters here on OLO? Or do you only ignore those that insult yourself, but approve of other people deriding others? I doubt anyone cares about your personal grief over being 'slighted' on an online forum, particularly when you choose the easier option of taking offence and avoiding to answer the more substantial question.

R0bert

I agree, as long as we continue to create a mystique and a sense that our genitals are obscene, sex will continue to be both exploited and perverted, by commercial interests.

Henson's art is doing what successful art has always done - amplified our failings and our prejudices. These shortcomings are purely cultural and not inherent. We don't have to have such major hang-ups about our bodies or sexuality - it is all learned behaviour. As others have already stated, in some cultures nakedness is seen as natural - the norm, while in ours a mother breast feeding a baby is regarded as shocking.

BTW the reason I said that there are as many male as female wowsers, was that you stated "Hetty if she still stands by the views expressed in that interview is willing to destroy the lives of adults (male ones anyway) to protect children who may not have been at genuine risk."

I know you have you problems with CSA, but perhaps you should consider that you do your cause no good by creating more conflict, besides not really relevant to this topic either. Shades of Boaz.

Fractelle, point taken.

For those wondering why at least one of our resident fundies seems to have trouble accepting the possibility that others may not see these images sexually you might consider some telling remarks made by him some time ago in relation to the sexual appeal of 9 year old girls - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2085

"Its as plain as dogs balls on a grasshopper that a man over 50 with existing wives and who marries again to a 9 or 15 or 18 yrs old, is going to be more sexually interested in HER than in the 'old wrinklies'"

Just in case you though that was a one off a earlier on the same page http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2036 "Ok.. I book your 9 yr old daughter to add to my 50 yr old wife"

And further down the same page http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2499
"There is a section in the old testament, where king david was on his death bed. The royal court went and searched for the 'hottest cutest virgin' they could find, and promptly sent her into the kings bed. The hope was to revive his interest in life. I think she was in this case 16. The underlying premise of course is that old men appreciate young girls. Get it ? But you are above such things right ?"

Worth keeping in mind when we struggle to understand why some fundies seem so keen on seeing kids in sexual terms.

R0bert

If nude photo's of a child are acceptable as art, then why dont we all have them in the family albums? Granted, there are many family albums with quite innocent pictures of babies and toddlers, playing in the bath or running around under a sprinkler in the backyard. But this drops off sharply at perhaps the age of 5. Care to answer me why?

If you would be happy with your child posing as long as they were (submitted by a few different posters), and they chose not to, would you castigate them for an unhealthy sexual/body image?

I dont buy the argument that a child of 12 even in a digital age is fully aware of the future consequences of nude posing (whether for art or not). Whilst they may be more broadly exposed to different value-systems, they could not possibly be aware of all of the ways such art could count against them in future (imagine the press field-day with this if the child/ren in question ever ran for public office). Whilst this may have a lot to do with the ills of our society rather than any fundamental moral issue, its still the societial constraints that we live in and should take into account when judging the validity of such issues. The damage that the media may inflict on this child's sense of worth and self-esteem in the future is an important consideration - emotional abuse is as bad as any other form of abuse.

Country Gal:
"If nude photo's of a child are acceptable as art, then why dont we all have them in the family albums?"

Because most people don't have art pictures in their family albums.

"If you would be happy with your child posing..., and they chose not to, would you castigate them for an unhealthy sexual/body image?"

Absolutely not. It is anyone's right to be as exposed or private as they choose. It doesn't follow that just because one person is happy to pose naked, everyone should be.

Probably most people have seen that a couple of Henson's old models, who are now in adults, have spoken out in his defence today. See here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/25/1211653846181.html

Steel,

My comments were directed at you, noone else. Your "90%" of posters usually manage to answer a straight question without resorting to abuse and rudeness. My comment is "deceitful"? You need time studying English instead of trying to smart talk others.

Stop being a twit. You don't know when enough is enough.

My special for the day is to let you have last say (which is what you probably want you poor thing).

So, go for it. Say what you like, and I won't respond