Mr. Morgan,

"Do you find that answer difficult to understand, or do you have a
reading disability as well as a propensity to sexualise naked children?"

No. I have no trouble reading, nor do I 'sexualise naked children'. You seem to have a gift for catty remarks.

I'm very glad that you doubt that your daughter would want to pose,and that she has higher moral standards than her father, which also allows you to make statements that you know don't have to back up.

By the way. I don't attribute human traits to inanimate objects, you odious little man.

Hi,

My own background is of an education of the sort which knows that we do need to assert that the photography in the exhibition is about beauty and not criminal social deviance, HOWEVER, I have a big however statement to make.

Over the past five years, through a sequence of bizarre turns in my life story, over which I had no control, it has happened to me that I have been made aware of how the illegal child pornography industry imagines it is able to cover its tracks and get away with actual child rape. Exhibitions like the one of Bill Heson, are perceived by real criminal social deviants, as no less a crime than their own criminality, in which they seek to excuse their own behaviour. It needs to be openly opposed for that reason. For the reason that there are criminal social deviants in the world who are just too far gone to care, and of whom, it is an abuse to let them see the body of a naked girl, because of how their attitude to her and her family, could influence the rest of her life.

The full story is that we need to be able to both criticise the world in which the naked body has been caused to become a temptation for criminal concepts, and assert that the real beauty inherent in a naked child, has a sanctity that can not be estranged from the child's own belief.

FRACTELLE SAID:

"In a world where our sexuality and bodies were considered absolutely normal"

For the Christian.. "Normal" is.. at an age of maturity, to find a life partner, marry her/him, and enjoy wonderful sexual intimacy in that framework.

"Not Normal" as well as hurtful, and harmful, is the man or the woman sleeping with someone outside their marriage relationship.

Now.. in 'incest' and 'adultery'.. we have 2 very easily identifiable behaviors which are hurtful and harmful.. agreed?

So, the issue is not the normality of sexuality, but the "use" of that normal, natural drive.

It should be clear in terms of common sense and reason, that we as a society, should be seeking to uphold and strengthen all values which result in less harm and less hurt in the area of sexual behavior.. agreed?

Now.. for me the next step would be to take this agreement, and convert/transform it into something by which we can actually see a result.

Unquestionably, IF.. we do this by legisltation "Adultery is illegal" for example.. there would be many people who would raise a hue and cry "Oh noooooo..the end of the world.. a new dark age"

Ok..alternative, we mutually encourage each other by way of media and education, to inculcate such values into our children....?

OH NOOOOO say the adulterous teachers, those living in 'sin'.. and Julia Guillard (and 2 of my children) is at the forefront.. no?

Without question there are 3 things we may draw from this:

1/ There MUST be agreed limits to sexual behavior.
2/ We SHOULD seek to enculturate/socialize the succeeding generation with values which reduce harm and hurt.
3/ No matter which way we seek to acheive this, SOMEone or some group, will be up in arms and whine and winge about moral oppression, wowserisim, "imposing 'your' morality on us" and so on it goes.

Now.. if we conclude that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.. it rather suggests 'JUST DO IT' :).. i.e.. LEGislate.. this way or that.. because we ain't gonna make every1 happy.

Virtually every post in the thread objecting to the pictures is religious in nature. If you people want to keep your religion, it would seem wise to keep it private, and not project it onto others lest mainstream society crushes it once and for all for the disease it is.

Threatening children with eternal damnation and teaching them lies is the most abusive exploitation of their nature.

Steel,

"Virtually every post in the thread objecting to the pictures is religious in nature."

I'm glad yous said 'virtually'. I am not religious, but I believe that children have to be protected.

Do you have a name for non-religious people who disagree with you?

Branding people is a favourite passtime of people who don't like to hear opposing opinions.

Dear Steel,

How are my posts on this thread religious in nature?

Either retract your statement or -

Please explain Sir.