I can understand how a childs body is “beautiful”.

I would hate to live in a world where, for the sake of political correctness, children were indoctrinated with self-loathing to prevent them feeling the attention of pedophiles.

Art is about many things. Some find aspects of it pornographic. I recall many decades ago, a young art student had her work hung in the local civic art gallery. She did some self-portraits of herself naked, with legs slightly apart exposing her vulva.

The locals screamed “porn” and her efforts were taken down, regardless of the ‘skill’ which she had used to execute the work.

I recall the 1960s magazine OZ when Neville & Co published it in UK, one edition contained pictures of pre-pubescent girls.

Pictures of kids do nothing for me sexually.

My daughters were and are beautiful, although to me, not in a sexual way.

If we are to be told what is good and what is bad by government leaders, where is respect for our own choices?

I have not seen the images which are being complained about but I would say

Simply because the subject is a child does not mean the work is evil or immoral.

Simply because that child might be naked or partly naked does not mean the work is evil or immoral.

We are in the realm of subjective values and no subjective value is ever absolutely good or absolutely bad. Most subjective values are irrelevant to everyone except the person who holds them

When we start to judge people by their subjectively held values, we limit the rights of others to diversify from us.

We accept the intolerance of the pack.

We are all lessened

Values imposed upon us are worthless because they are not our values, they are only those which are tolerated by the pack.

That is not a life worth living.

It is merely existence through compliance, at the discretion of the pack.

Steel

You post >> “Objections to the work are (generally):- religious., emotional, … lacking in reason ... . If you do not subscribe to any of them, then you must have a censorship agenda”

Youre the one who needs to learn how to read. When I say it is not about nudity I have clearly expressed a number of times that adult nudity is not part of this argument. This is about nudity in respect to children only, not nudity in general. The number of you Henson supporters who want to pretend we are opposing all nudity is overwhelming. Just because you people can’t see the difference between photos of nude adults and nude children for public consumption doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

I notice you refused to answer the one question I asked. Gutless.

How do you even bring breastfeeding into a pornography/pedophile thread. You guys are just grasping at straws trying to wiggle out of the fact that you support the publication of images of children which would be enough to send a non artist to jail if he took them himself.

You think It’s prudish to be opposed to the sexyualisation of Children. I suppose by that standard you also believe it is prudish to be opposed to pedophilia.

Your argument seems to be that because something was once considered to be taboo (breastfeeding in public) and now is not, therefore all taboos are inappropriate. Is that your feeling with regard to pedophilia?

You all seem to be arguing about anything but why it is you believe that its OK for 13 year old children should be photographed naked. Breastfeeding, legs showing, adult nudity, burkhas, its all smokescreen for the fact that you are arguing for the rules which apply to adults to be applied to children, against the law. Don’t tell me why its ok to see adults naked in art. I agree. Don’t tell me why its ok to breastfeed in public, I agree, Explain to me why its OK to for 13 year old children should be photographed naked

Pelican,

well put.

PaulL.>"The number of you Henson supporters who want to pretend we are opposing all nudity is overwhelming."

What are you talking about? I demand you read every post I have made to date and tell me where this was suggested! Prove it.

PaulL>"How do you even bring breastfeeding into a pornography/pedophile thread."

You better shut up mate, and go read my comment. I was responding to LUDWIG'S COMMENT SPECIFICALLY AS INDICATED. GO READ IT.

PaulL.>"You think It’s prudish to be opposed to the sexyualisation of Children."

How is nudity sexual? Are you that repressed? How do you find naked child sexual? Are *YOU* a pedophile? I said many posts ago and I know you read it, that you must assume all Australians are pedophiles to reach your conclusion. You totally ignored it, and here you are again saying the same thing.Your bias is old, mate and it's affecting your reading ability and comprehension.

Steel,

You seem to be getting a little heated, settle petal, All those capitalised sentences are beginning to scare me.

Firstly there is Fractelle, who says because we object to the sexualisation of children, ie Hensons work that

>> “ the next steps will be … Put all naturist clubs out of business. Etc”

Yvonne says>> The saddest aspect of this furore, not just the issue of censorship, is how many people immediately equate nudity with sex. …That's why once upon a time women wore long dresses and men had to go up the stairs before her…,”

CJ says>>´Does that mean I have to throw out my art books, not to mention our print of "Chloe"?”

Finally you say>> “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”

So, I think I have shown that many of you want to believe that we are somehow ant-nudity, when in fact we are against the sexualisation of children

You said>> “Many people consider breastfeeding sleazy and offensive. Indeed this was a mainstream opinion in Australia at one point (still is judging by the hordes of frigid, prudish bigots in the electorate).

Please explain how you are not repeat NOT discussing the changing morals regarding breastfeeding in the light of this debate about pedophilia.

You ask “am I a pedophile” Hey mate, It’s not me who wants to see naked children. If the cap fits …

You haven’t answered my single question. Are you suggesting that it is OK for a pedophile to have photos of naked kids in the same poses as Hensons

If you can’t answer that one question don’t bother expecting any more replies from me.

I asked you to prove where *I* claimed it Paul. Those examples you gave of others prove nothing. They are good arguments and are not invalidated by this. None of them claim "it's about all nudity" or that "you object to all nudity".

When I said it is about nudity, I did not say it was not about children. I also said it in response to you who explicitly claimed it wasn't. Again: *You* are the one who made the *explicit* statements about this *not* being about nudity. No one else made any absolute claims like that. No one (including me) claimed it was not about children, for example.

And you are going on about my breastfeeding comment. Read the surrounding sentences. Honestly, do I have to explain the context to you and that I was addressing a comment of Ludwig's....AGAIN?

And yes *YOU* should really be concerned whether you are the pedophile here. No one else thinks a child being nude is sexual. No one thinks of children that way except you who said, "You think It’s prudish to be opposed to the sexyualisation of Children." And this is a discussion about nude models in a photograph. Apparently the naked model is automatically sexual. If you see naked children this way then you are the pedophile. Normal people do not think children's naked bodies are sexual. But you do.

Btw your question is a classic "loaded" question fallacy.

“Honestly, if you have some hang ups then keep them to yourself…”

Deary me Steel. What you are really saying is, ‘if you have a view that I don’t like don’t express it’. Yes?

Well gee, having read all your posts on this thread, I actually didn’t know that you would disagree with that (:>(

I basically agree with your position as expressed on this thread. But you still managed to find something that you reckon we don’t agree on and go a long way towards alienating someone with whom you probably share a great deal of common ground on this issue. Hmmm.

You’ve jumped to a totally incorrect conclusion that I have a problem with anything presented on SBS per se. What I object to (and I thought I had made it quite clear) is the presentation of stuff on television that is blatantly outside of our society's accepted values of what should be seen, what can be shown in a public place, what can be displayed on a magazine rack in a newsagency, etc….and apparently an art gallery!

I want our stodgy attitude to sex and nudity to greatly soften just as you apparently do. I wouldn’t have a problem with a whole television series on the penis, or on the intimate detail of human sexuality, if it was accepted practice and if images therein could be readily displayed all over the place, including art galleries, newspapers, television news, etc.

I particularly want our society’s confusion and duplicity over all this sort of stuff to be resolved.