I wonder how these pictures would be regarded if they were a painting and not photographs. If they were paintings done by someone only interested in the art and not the child of course.

My thought would be that as paintings they should not be banned. I found it a bit harder to make up my mind on this because they were photographs for some reason. Although I don't know why. Maybe because photos tend to be more associated with porn.

Where I will always have a problem with this debate, is that to
me, nakedness is associated with what is natural. If we look at
tribes, societies, not influenced by religion to the degrees that
ours has been, they take a much more natural view of all this.

It seems here that once again its devout Xtians that associate
nakedness with porn. A bit like the Muslims really lol.

Porn to me is something very different!

Where this problem really began, is that its our so called Xtian
heritage that has associated anything like nakedness, with what is
dirty, evil and must be sexual. A woman breastfeeding her child
would have to be the most natural thing in the world. Yet devoutly
religious people get upset about that, for some reason.

Somehow religion tends to screw up peoples minds about this whole
topic, for we face a constant stream of information of yet another
sect, cult, or religious group, where the leaders landed up fathering
a whole string of kids, or paedophilia covered up.

TRTL

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.

The question should be who is more deceived or in denial:

The one who claims that staring at naked girls in puberty is not likely to turn many men on or the one who claims that they are looking at the artistic nature of her breasts and vagina.

*The one who claims that staring at naked girls in puberty is not likely to turn many men on *

The question arises Runner, why are you doing the staring? What
sort of deprived childhood did you have?

If you had grown up accepting that people have various body parts
and that vaginas, penises and breasts, are all very natural and
normal things, which we have and use every day, at some point it
would hit you that there is more to sexuality and sexual relationships
then staring at somebody's bodyparts for the first time.

Now if those parts have been encloacked in secrecy, the mystical
and magical, the dirty or evil, the mysterious, etc, of course
people will stare. If they accept things as natural, what is
there to stare at?

This is where methinks that religion produces screwed up people.
It denies what is natural and normal, in the name of dogma.

“Don't attempt to lump this in with some peoples prudish distaste for nakedness of any kind. We are talking about young kids here. They need our protection not exploitation, whatever the aim.”

I’m with Paul here. I too have severe reservations about this exhibition and for what I consider to be very valid reasons, many of them already clearly articulated here by Paul, Pelican, Foxy and others. I also resent the fact that my views will be dismissed as those of someone who is either “sexually challenged”, a “Christian Moralist” or as claimed on the other thread a “feminist prude”. I’m none of these and have a very healthy attitude toward human sexuality, but I think the escalating problem of child abuse in society today means we have to reassess some of the boundaries of artistic licence when it comes to images of children

I agree with Clive Hamilton on this, again no intellectual slouch, no moralistic prude and no Christian nutter. He stated that we all understand that artists are there to push boundaries but we as a society also have a responsibility to push back. While nudity in art is not an issue for myself nor I imagine many others questioning this exhibition, the sexualization and exploitation of children certainly is and Henson’s photos in my mind would do more to feed into that situation than they would to seriously question and critique it.

Art today isn’t only viewed by an informed elite as it has tended to be in the past. With the advent of the Internet and its increasing accessibility, artistic images can be lifted and circulated in all sorts of ways quite unanticipated by the artist. However much artistic merit and beauty these photos might contain, there is no escaping the fact that they are invasive and confronting photos of a naked child. Where do we draw the line between viewing images of naked children in an art gallery and viewing them in a paedophile’s collection on a home computer? Is there a line? Both express a point of view after all.

Ginx,

I sincerely apologise if my post offended, hurt or angered you. It was not directed at you, or to all those who hold a different opinion to mine about banning naked images of children. It was, indeed, directed at those who see sexuality in nakedness albeit of children or adults.

I accept totally your emphatic denial of harbouring such thoughts and, having formed the opinion through your posts that you are a strong and intelligent person did not for one moment class you in that category.

The bargain basement analogy was drawn from the relation to Target catalogues:- there certainly doesn't strike me that there is anything at all bargain basement about you. I see you, and always have done, as an insightful and forthright person whose ideas, whether they agree with those I hold or not, I respect.

To reiterate: I am appalled by those people whose objection is based on what THEY see as the sexuality - albeit latent - of the subject. I certainly am not outraged or appalled nor do I in any way harbour any negative feelings towards those who disagree with the views I hold upon this or any other subject. (except, it must be admitted, for BD and his women-as-inferior model!).