Well, Clive Hamilton is only giving his opinion. And it's riddled with false assumptions and propositions.

Lets take:

>Clive Hamilton "And I argue that she, the girl, the model, could not possibly understand the implications of being presented naked to the world"

This is absolutely ridiculous. The model GREW UP in the digital age, around the internet. She grew up in an age of TELEVISION. It's not only understood, it's guaranteed she "knew the implications". If she's been living without it, then she need only have been told that she will be naked in front of a room full of people, and to imagine that other people many times that group size would also (something a child half her age would understand). And also then all those children shamed and ridiculed by their parents on home videos should sue their parents later in life (neither was it consented, nor were they even able to "comprehend"). There are other questions over the premise but I will leave those alone for now

Posted in a bit of a hurry this afternoon and have just realised my post here is on the wrong thread! Never mind, the two debates seem much the same judging by the quick look I've had just now.

CJ Morgan
'Why are you fundies so dishonest, and why do you have such dirty minds?

Frankly CJ, all Christians know they need to have their minds renewed because they are corrupted. Those who reject light continue to walk in darkness as your corrupted minds demonstrates.

I suggest to you that you are dishonest in pretending you would allow your 12 year old to pose nude for a 'bona fide'. If you are not pretending you certainly one sick cookie and should remove the plank from your eye before making judgements about my honesty. I would suggest also that you are more of a fundie than me. The only difference is it is in human secularism. That is why your views are so warped. Even the Prime Minister agrees on this one.

Well well well... I rejoice that Romany has finally left the dark side and come over to the side of the 'force' and joined me in my unceasing declaration that

"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."

So....presumably dear Romany, you would consider a man who claimed he had a dream that a 6 yr old should be his "wife" and him having sex with her at 9 yrs of age.. would fall into the category of "mucky minded people, looking at 9 yrs olds as a sexual entity" :)

Hooooray.. we argee at last.

Though there is much more to this....and it is found in your phrase "sexual entity"

Now THAT is where the line between 'naked body' and 'pornographically displayed' naked body is found.

CONTEXT/POSTURE. is the key.

If a child is naked and simply standing there.. or even laying asleep, with no paricular emphasis on the display of private parts, or any posture which is clearly 'sexual' in nature, then hopefully we would not read more into such an image than 'nude person of young age'.

BUT..if that child is arranged such that his/her body and private parts are displayed in a manner that ALL of us know would be 'overtly sexual'
then.. we have 'PORNOGRAPHY'.

I still no no more than in my last post, i.e. awareness of only one image, the Vietnamese girl in the bombing.

So, I'm speaking hyperthetically, as I assume most of us are? so we must limit our discussion to 'principle'.

There is NOTHING 'religiously prudish/wowserish' about protecting children and society from the mis-use of children for pornographic or erotic use to either
1/-Make money
2/-Build a reputation as a 'boundary breaking artist'
3/-Break down established social/moral norms with which we feel comfortable.

On point 3, this will depend on ones moral foundation in life, and in a demcracy, 'mine' is as valid as 'yours' :)

Only Boazy could try and turn this into an opportunity to spout some anti-Islamic bile.

runner: << all Christians know they need to have their minds renewed because they are corrupted >>

While that certainly seems to be true from what we see posted here by some fundy Christians, I put it to you that it is your "corrupted" minds that find sin in art. There is a difference between pornography and art, but a pervert, fundy or prude probably can't see it.

There is absolutely no sin in nakedness. However, there probably is in projecting your own sexual fetishes and hang-ups on to others.

P.S. Boazy - I don't think the photo you're describing is by Henson - rather it's a classic news photograph from the Vietnam War era. However, the pictures I have seen from those that were removed from the exhibition certainly fit your stricture:

<< If a child is naked and simply standing there.. or even laying asleep, with no paricular emphasis on the display of private parts, or any posture which is clearly 'sexual' in nature, then hopefully we would not read more into such an image than 'nude person of young age'. >>

If you want to see what the fuss is supposedly about, you can see some of the images here:

http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/

See here is the problem. The world has already been groomed to be sexualised....So this picture of a naked 12 year old reads sex to many, many people young and old....

This is not a perfect, safe or just world. In today's climate this is child pornography and we live in today's climate.

Imagine how the Muslim community would see this? They would severely punish somebody and even many for that. Yet some in the Western world want to promote it?

Children should not be permitted to pose nude for adults or even other children, it really is as easy as that...Adults should do everything in their power to protect the children from pedophiles, exploitation and even psychological abuse and keeping children’s clothes on is the best way.

Jolanda Challita
Education - Keeping them HOnest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better