Pretty well said.

Gibo, runner - both of you, if you can for one moment set aside the other elements to this and honestly just ask yourself this one question, I think both sides of this debate would get a little closer to consensus:

Which of the following is more perverted:

a) the person who assumes a naked body must have some kind of sexual connotation.

b) the person who does not.

We're all adults here. (Well, with the internet, who knows, but I'm going to assume so). So perhaps, if we can start with an agreement of the above point, perhaps we can move beyond mudslinging rhetoric.

I would concede one point of justification to gibo and runner - they are right in that those who did view children as sex objects would indeed seek out such an exhibit.

But to equate that to banning it entirely with such gestapo tactics, and completely voiding any artistic debate?

That's what art is. As other posters have said, it is about challenge and controversy.

Another question, gibo and runner - what is your opinion of Michelangelo's David?
What is your opinion of the many, many fountains throughout Europe and beyonf, that - shock, horror - depict young boys peeing? Many of these artworks are regarded as being masterpieces.

Have you honestly considered either of those questions?
If not, I can only categorise your comments as kneejerk reactions which are being stated without much by way of consideration of the bigger picture.

I ask again: is Michelangelo's David just porn? Have either of you the courage to consider something with a little more depth?

Which of you would be prepared to have your own daughters, or sons, (if you have any 11 to 12 years old) photographed naked and put on public display?

"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.....

.....Bargain basement images for bargain basement minds."

Posted by Romany, Saturday, 24 May 2008 7:58:23 PM
________________________________

This from a bargain basement mucky mind:-
This from a female who by definition is very clearly NOT a feminist:-
This from a female who unapologetically lines up with the Right and the Religious:-

I do not; DO NOT!! look at a twelve year olds body and see it as a sexual entity.
I am disgusted that this 'art' DOES allow a legal platform for those who do!

Here we go again. Freedom of Expression this time.

( AND;....there is no bloody way that I will sit back and be attacked as having a cesspit mind/ narrow mind/religious bigotry (love that one!)/unhealthy view of young bodies etc.,............and NOT respond!!)

You feel strongly? So do I.

Well I am not sure which unflattering category I might be cast into by some posters on OLO - I am an atheist and do not consider myself a "prudish feminist" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).

No nudity is not sinful but let's be clear about this - we are talking about children - are we all on the same planet?

To suggest that those who wish to protect children are somehow sexually deviant in their protest is repugnant and cowardly. I would be equally remiss in arguing that those defending the art are pedophiles - because I understand that the outrage (albeit misplaced in my view) is more about censorship and artistic freedoms.

To quote Mr Rudd in his radio interview this morning - let's just let our kids be kids'. I have to agree.

Ginx: "I do not; DO NOT!! look at a twelve year olds body and see it as a sexual entity.
I am disgusted that this 'art' DOES allow a legal platform for those who do!"

What does that mean? What's the "legal platform"? Is it nudity in a gallery? If so, do you object to all naked children in art?

While I'm looking forward to your responses, I appreciate your point — a lot of people object to kids under-18 posing naked and it doesn't mean they get off on it themselves. They object for other reasons. It's a good point and I'm glad you made it.

Mr Right:
I would be okay with my child posing naked for an artist, IF:
a: my child wanted to. That would be the only reason the question would arise
b: I was convinced my child understood art in general and the art in question in particular. Really understood it — it would only make sense if I had a child who had their own precocious artistic sensibility — any boy or girl who thought it would "get them into modelling" or somesuch would not get my permission. My child would have to understand what child pornography was and convince me this WASN'T it, and why
c: I had vetted the artist. That would require knowing them for some years, knowing they weren't getting off on it sexually or doing it for any sexual reason or audience whatsoever. I would need to know and respect their art. I would seek substantial independent verification of their artistic credentials — including from as many other underage models as I could muster
d: I was at the shoot. This would be non-negotiable.
e: and other things. I'd think about it more than I'm thinking about it right now.

vanilla
your last post shocked me to think that you would allow this to happen.
I have 5 children and i would not permit this in any circumstance.
It just made me sick to my stomach to read what you had written.

How easy you are all to bait.

But i do understand art and the body is no more than a body. You are all a bunch of sh#t stirrers and i think we can do a lot more better with our thoughts.

Pedophilia is a term to loosely used in our day to day society. I think there should be a new thread about why fathers feel the fear of being and interacting and playing the role of a father in this twisted worlds view of how society should present itself.

On a personal note i know whats happening on this site and the between the lines conversations and the community that is watching and judging, give it a rest.

my philosophy is! (I SIT BACK AND WATCH AND LISTEN) and you wonder why I'm worried about the human race.