Vanilla: << I'd also like to add that there's not one person posting on this board that I don't believe has the best interests of children as their primary consideration. There is enormous, enormous disagreement about how those interests are best served. They very fact that we are all here, furiously typing, and getting ourselves into knots of anguish proves that we want children to be protected.

I also think it's worth stressing yet again the point Gynx made above — you don't have to have a mucky mind to interpret these images as sexual. >>

Yes, very salient points indeed. This is clearly one of those issues about which people tend to respond viscerally first, then intellectually later. Perhaps we should all take a collective metaphorical deep breath.

Having said that, I think that the legal ramifications will indeed be fascinating. This is probably also a discussion that needs to be had, although I acknowledge that it pales into insignificance when compared with other issues with which we are faced in the contemporary world.

Also, as I've previously said on this thread or the parallel one - at least people are more generally talking about art and sexuality because of it. It's come up in conversation socially over the weekend, and at work today.

Interesting stuff indeed :)

*One thing I've learned about child sexual abuse of any kind is that one of the biggest challenges is disclosure — getting kids to admit it's happening to them.*

I certainly agree with that. Whilst child abuse is not my area of
expertise, all that I've read is that its been pretty common and
mostly involves somebody related to or known to the family, not
so much the paedophile down the road etc.

What has changed and is still changing is that today's kids grow
up with a more open mind to sexuality etc, unlike 50 years ago,
where they were told it was dirty, evil etc. etc. I gather that
even in schools, kids are taught to speak up, unlike years ago,
where anything to do with sexuality was hush hushed under the
carpet. It then continued and was common, exactly because
perpertrators got away with it.

The more that kids are taught to speak up, the more they are
protected by the fact that the perpertators will be exposed
and caught.

Fractelle,

When and if the law is changed, I will have to live with it as will you. The same applies now.

Vanilla,

The naked human body doesn’t do anything for me, irrespective of the age of the body: I’m more for a little bit of mystery, rather than being brutally confronted by someone starkers. My objections to nude photographs have nothing to do with anything sexual.

However, some might find the photographs sexually suggestive, even though you and Fractelle have proclaimed them not to be. I suppose that it’s a matter of opinion, but I still say that anyone who claims that naked bodies are ‘artistic’ is a bit suss.

As for the insults you have received, join the club, and remember that it was you who kicked off one of the discussions; if you don’t expect a bit off roughs stuff, don’t start discussions.

I will never agree with you, but I will say that you do go about things politely enough to make me regret my comment about your fitness to be a parent. I am obviously in no position to make such a comment, and I apologise for it

A bit late, but I'll take up Mr Right's challenge. As the parent of an 11-year-old girl, would I consent for her to pose nude for a photographer (even one as decent as Henson would seem to be) in a year or two? Definitely not as she's very immature emotionally (due to Asperger's syndrome).

However, I want her to grow up being proud of her body. Our society sexualises the body, while making most of us feel inadequate. Advertising seduces us with the promise of sexual allure, selling everything from 4WDs to toothpaste and moisturisers. It's hard to see the buffed model in his jocks, with shoulders like a side of beef, and not feel shabby. God knows what it's like for women.

I have always found Henson's images (with or without figures) rather bleak and disturbing. David Marr described them as creepy and I have to agree. But the visceral feelings they engender suggest to me that they're actually pretty accomplished art.

Henson's teenagers confront precisely because they are obviously not quite children any more. They're not adults either, but they soon will be. Regarding whether the art is exploitation or not, I suppose it comes down to informed consent by both model and parents.

But I think we have to get away from this incredible reticence about the body. The moral panic of this episode leaves me feeling depressed.

It's been stated elsewhere in the media that the most common items found in the raided homes of pedophiles are Target and K-Mart catalogues showing children in their underwear.
So, when does this part of the campaign begin?

Adults that display - DISPLAY - as art appreciation naked photographs of ACTUAL pre or pubescent teens in their homes have an immature and perverted mind. They obviously display it for some form of sexual pleasure. It is certainly not frehand art but an actual image of an actual child. Only fully mature bodies legally capable of sex are to be admired for their sexual beauty.

Obviously the guy is perverted by his action to expose nude images of an actual child's sexual parts to public display. Next he will display the child herself in a Public galleyr and cal it art.