CJ,

Mate that is truly pathetic. How old is Chloe?

According to young and Jackson she is 19. I don't have a problem with anyone over the age of consent posing nude for photos/paintings.

Your and others attempts to recast this issue as being either for, or against, nudity of any kind, shows how uncomfortable you are talking about this rationally. We aren't talking about nudity/sexuality as a whole, we are talking about children. If the subject of the photo was 19 there would be no OLO general discussion. For me, if she was 16 the issue would be irrelevant. But she is isn't, she's 13.

The whole point of his pictures is that the children are in the early stages of puberty and are discovering their sexuality.

So don't pretend that there is NOTHING sexual about it. Its just not true.

Paul your comment doesn't make sense. THose two points have nothing to do with one another. All parties consented to the artwork and felt liberated and happy in doing so. This has been the case for all children in art for decades. It's very telling that:

Objections to the work are (generally):
- religious.
- only of the present time, suggesting a politically reactionary context. the artist (and others) have been doing this for 25 years without issue
- are media driven.
- all those who never complained or had any problem are never counted

- are emotional and lacking in reason, if they present one at all.
- generally assume normal adults are pedophiles...absolutely ridiculous, in other words
- assume the teenager is a mindless entity unable to act on their own or understand the world
- assume the parents are irresponsible.
- think a child's body is inherently 'sinful'

most of these are required to believe this is 'wrong'. If you do not subscribe to any of them, then you must have a censorship agenda

"generally assume normal adults are pedophiles"

And that's the crux of it. Because some people are excited by underage girls, it's somehow assumed that the masses will suddenly be furiously masturbating in art galleries.

I wonder how many of the people who see defacto pornography in Henson's photographs also believe that homosexuals can recruit heterosexuals to their "lifestyle"? Both accusations suggest that the accuser is more attracted to the object of their outrage than they'd like to admit.

I'm totally with PaulL. on this.

It seems to me that there is not much point in further discussing this exhibition if (some) of the pro-Henson lobby are making this into a nudity issue. Where has anyone said that adults cannot pose nude if they choose to and where has anyone said we should all start wearig burkhas?

I think this is an unfair generalisation and interpretation of why some people are not okay with Henson's picturs and the argument is misleading.

Nudity in itself is not the isssue nor is it the thrust of the discussion. It is the fact that the subjects of these photographs are children who are not of legal age and it does not matter one iota if the intent of the artist was pornography or not (I suspect it wasn't).

I am at a loss to understand how that fact is easily forgotten while some of you are pursuing quite a different issue (nudity in general) on a completely different tangent.

I don't know how you can type that out like that Pelican.

It is unresevedly about nudity. Just look at the *original complainant*. Their statements alone indicate it is beyond question.

If it were really about children, and not nudity, then you are suggesting that no child could ever appear in art, clothed or otherwise. That anyone who sees a child in a gallery setting, should be imprisoned. Not even the worst dictatorships and despots on the planet are that insane.

Boazy, ethereal? That's a big word for you. Not too sure what point you want to make with it, but it will no doubt be perfectly logical from your perspective. At least you got what I intended with the paragraph you quoted.

You seemed to get something erotic out of it.

Paul, an adult portrayed naked, or near naked, can be erotic, but not always so. See the many near naked depictions of Christ on the cross, just to give one obvious example. His near nakedness is not to titillate.

Having said that, on the issue of exploitation, it is disturbing how many people think that a young adult woman cannot be exploited (remember Bill Clinton and Monica? It almost got him impeached).

As for children not being able to make decisions or have understanding at a sophisticated level at any time makes me wonder whether some of you have ever had an actual conversation with a child.

The debate that these photo's have caused says much about how many of us feel about nudity and sexuality.

It also says much about how we feel guilty at our failure to protect child victims from adult predators. We look for a scapegoat: if it weren't for the likes of Bill Henson there would be no abused children. Or at least only very few.

The vast majority of abused children are not victims of lurking pedophile strangers turned on by work hanging in an art gallery, but by the very people who are known and should be trusted by them.

What we need to acknowledge is that that is what is so disturbing about child sexual abuse. It happens in the family. The very place where children should always be safe.

Stopping Bill Henson from showing his work is not going to alter that one iota, but we can all feel so much better for caring and seen to be 'doing' something about the shocking fact that there are adults, more often than not known to the victim, who prey on children.