Just to clarify, it was me who made the "feminist prudes" comment, and I obviously wasn't very clear about what I was trying to say. My reference to the current "moral panic" about paedophilia was supposed to link the hysteria about Henson to a wider agenda being prosecuted by an unholy alliance of Christian fundies and some fringe feminists.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that I think that feminists in general are prudish - in fact, in my experience they are far from it!

And runner, I would have no qualms at all about my daughter posing nude for a reputable, bona fide artist, if she wanted to. A pervert would undoubtedly fantasise about a kid like her whether or not she had clothes on.

There is nothing inherently sexual about a nude human body of any age. In my opinion those who think otherwise have unresolved problems with their sexuality, that they project on to others.

*There is nothing inherently sexual about a nude human body of any age. In my opinion those who think otherwise have unresolved problems with their sexuality, that they project on to others.*

Actually very true CJ. I seem to recall that 100 years of so ago,
when men went to the beach, they would have to have their chests
covered too, as it was seen as immoral for men to go topless.

Based on that kind of logic, Gibo and Runner, if they do the same
would have to be classified as porn stars :)

And to clarify my last comment was to say that your mind and others is worth bottling. I am no academic genius, but I do appreciate a good severing of wit and commonsense. That's what I was laughing at.

This whole thread reeks of paranoia.

Here is my five cents worth!

WHO GIVES A SH#T!

By the way! Does anyone have a blind-fold. lol

I really cant believe the people in this world.
I am starting to get worried!

All the best.

EVO

Though I have no new point to add, I would just like to put my hand up as being in total agreement with those who consider the proposed banning of these works as outrageous.

I'm appalled at the mucky-minded people who could look at a twelve year olds body and see it as a sexual entity. THAT, to me is the outrage.

But then, maybe they are the same people as the ones mentioned above who get their jollies out of Target catalogues.

Bargain basement images for bargain basement minds.

If such people can't see art in the curves and planes, the light and shade, the absolute wonder of that perfection of engineering - the human body - then I'm guessing they don't spend much time in Art galleries or looking at art. And if so, what is the point of their outrage?

If anything in a very clear way it shows that goodness still exists in government.
The government sent out the police and they did their duty; which is to protect society from anything that increase lawlessness...i.e. in this case, child pornography inspiring sex offenders to prey on young girls.
The child was under age according to law.
Wheres the problem?
We really ought not forget what government is all about...protecting those who live under it.
If the murky bohemian underworld wants to opt out and do the unlawful thing and put the rest of us at risk... then they have to pay.

Gibo! The government have no choice in being ( cant find the word ) and you know it!

EVO