Hey OUG? can we dump the dude stuff? the bro thing too?
I was there for the sixty's and do not have the time to re invent them now.
Just maybe some of your ideas in this thread are in my view inventions too.
I think our conversations will be limited but can assure you I am no threat to children.
That slur about Saturday and children had no class or direction.
I am baffled that a quick look in the street would on some days find children dressed like adults rather tacky adults,
And wonder if any of their parents are offended by these photos?
Art is not always good but it should always be interesting these photos are Innocent good and purely art.

Very nicely put yvonne.

Yvonne....

<<lest somebody gets erotic thoughts from seeing long bare legs going every which way or pretty collar bones at the base of a lovely slender neck, and golly gosh if she has cheeky eyes looking straight at you.>>

hmmmmmm.. does anyone else feel a bit stuffy.. its rather hot in here no? (loosens collar) :)

I confess.. 'long bare legs'..... yep.. they are a turn on... I guess that makes me some kind of pervert :)

Ok..have fun with that.

Vonney... the problem with your 'ethereal other world' reasoning is that most of life is structured and defined by the opposite. MTV.. writhing pulsating, thrusting bodies in all directions, showing as much leg and breast and butt cheek as they can...-held back only by the law......now.. surely you don't consider they do this for 'nothing' do you?....

I'll say this though, the ONE thing which can turn 'lust' for a great pair of legs/breasts/hips/face into something wonderful, is love.
It has been my experience in life, that we meet various types of females.. some say only one thing to us.. "I'm here for 'me' and I'm here for sex" (with my selfishly selected partners that is).. and by the way.. looook at my cute this and that.. ain't I just so hot..doncha wish ur girlfriend was "hot" like ME....

Yep.. leaves me UTTERLY cold.

But... oooh yes.. BUT.. meet someone who is both beautiful, shapely and has a humble heart, a gentle spirit, a selfless outlook, and what could have been 'lust' can quickly become all embracing loveof the total person, and that without the slightest hint of 'sexual desire' apart from its appropriate context of marriage.

So, I conclude that there are 2 sides to all this.

1/ The way the 'package' is presented and it's content.
2/ The values which we personally hold dear, and by which we interact with other people of the opposite gender.

Well well this is where moral relativism has got us. Some defend girls and boys being displayed naked because they claim to be purer that the Lord Himself. They are quick to deny the adamic nature but display it everyday in their arrogance. They insist their are no moral absolutes and then even try to correct my spelling errors and grammar. It is a pity they are so blinded by their stupid failed philosophy.

We certainly live in a day when every man does what is right in hid/her own mind. No wonder we have people defending deviants and deviant work.

Yvonne

You say >> “Soon children will be expected to cover up with burkas, lest somebody gets erotic thoughts.”

That is ridiculous. It’s like me saying everyone who goes to see these photos will turn into a pedophile.

The whole point about the photos is that they are of children who are in the early stages of puberty and are discovering their sexuality. To suggest that there is NOTHING sexual about them is really stretching credulity.

In our society we don’t give 12 or 13 year old children the right to make decision which will affect their long term futures. That’s how it is. You don’t get to decide whether you go to school. You don’t get to decide whether you can drive, vote or get a tattoo. And you are not considered old enough to give legal consent to have sex. Why do the Henson supporters believe that the “models” are capable of giving their consent?

This kid is going to have to go to school with other kids who have seen her naked and the potential is there for real problems.

Fractelle,

You’re not the only one who seems to want to lump all nudity/sexuality into the one category, but I’ll start with you. Can’t you see that a naked child is in an entirely different category to naked adults, who have the capacity to understand and process both the short and long term moral, ethical and social ramifications?

I’m not trying to stop adults from getting naked or f@cking in public for that matter. What I am interested in is the welfare of children.

Your list is absolutely ridiculous. You seem to be saying that because we object to the sexualisation of children, we want to ban any and all sexually explicit activities.

CJ,

We aren’t the people who enjoy checking out naked children. If you want to see pictures of naked children, you have kids, take your own.

I wonder how many of you would be comfortable with pictures of your own children in these poses hanging in your house, or those of your neighbours.

I had really said all I'd wanted to on these parallel threads (how do OLO editors make their decisions?) However, I think Paul L has been confused by one of my posts and needs my help. See post below, I thought it was obviously tongue-in-cheek

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831&page=0#36556

Anyone (except for Paul) who has read my posts know that I DO make a very clear distinction between nudity and sexuality - THAT has been my entire point throughout this thread. It is people like Runner, Philo and Boaz who associate nudity with sex.

BTW

On Henson being charged as pornographer - doubt very much that he will be for the following reasons:

The childrens' consent was informed and parental consent also provided. See below:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/25/1211653846181.html

The subjects were simply nude - not even erotic, let alone pornographic.

Finally, the goods news is: Bill Henson has probably expanded his fan base to people who were not aware of his work at all.

:-)