Steel,

You say >>” The content of a picture does not change depending whose hands are on it Paul”

I very much appreciate you making my point for me. These pictures, were they not the work of a renowned photographer, found in the possession of an adult other than perhaps the parents, would be considered incriminating. That is, they would be considered to be possession of child pornography. That’s why the police are investigating.

You say >>” You want thought crime? ok, line up with the nazis and communists” I’m not the one making the distinction between art and obscenity. I’m saying that if it is illegal for a pedophile it should also be illegal for a photographer. You’re the one who thinks there should be different rules based upon how a person thinks. I’m for a single line for everyone not to cross.

You say >> “It was fully consented and the model is perfectly happy with this”

I’m saying that most 12/13 year olds are not old enough to understand the full ramifications of this decision and are not therefore capable of giving proper consent.

You say >>”Can you explain how a naked child's body is innately offensive and indecent, to the degree it is considered pornography”

What is offensive is the adults who want to view this for their own pleasure/enjoyment. Not the child herself.

As for the history of art, all I can say is that I’m quite sure you, as a pleb, don’t want to go back to the morality and law of ‘ye olden days’. Back then the rich did what they pleased, and the peasants paid for it with their blood and sweat. And your brand of liberalism would have been considered absurd. Equality of all men wasn’t on, let alone equality of men and women.

Bronwyn,

You have put your point very eloquently and I must say I entirely agree. There has been far too much name calling and hysteria. This is about protection of children, not the rights of adults who already have enough rights without responsibilities as it is

I think the point has been made before that any pictures of children in a pedophiles possession are "incriminating" in the sense that they only may indicate that the person has an 'unususal' obsession with children (eg. department store catalogues). Nothing else. Do police raid department stores because these catalogues would be seen as incriminating in that hands of a pedophile?No. Are they enough to prove someone is a pedophile?No.

You missed the point about the history of art. How do you explain all of the naked adolescents to date? Are you going to retroactively label all of them as producers of child pornography? The idea is so ridiculous it is almost hilarious in it's stupidity. It's a characteristic of fascism for police to do such a thing for political reasons (where before such things have been perfectly acceptable). What you are seeing is the definition of child pornography *expanding* to include innocuous and normal pictures of naked children.

PaulL.>"I’m saying that most 12/13 year olds are not old enough to understand the full ramifications of this decision and are not therefore capable of giving proper consent."

How dare you presume to speak on behalf of the teenager and her parents. Like other adolescents, that is why you don't see them running stark naked around the city. They know full well what a photograph and what other people seeing a photograph of them means (that's what they see all the time in advertising and media). They did this and are defending the artist. Young people know what crime is that is why they aren't running about the city breaking things and stealing from every shop they go to. They are expected to understand more complex things by society already. I'm going to go back and cite my earlier list I made for flawed assumptions that must be made before you can see the photographs in this way. You are assuming these adolescents are mindless zombies, which is incredibly demeaning. The harm here is coming from the 'bravehearts' screaming at the young people and calling them irresponsible and mindless.

Steel

Your have enough straw men in your last post to make yourself your very on set of straw warriors.

1. I don’t accept your point about the catalogues. Anyone who makes the point that Target catalogues are somehow the same as hensons work is “retarded. If the Target catalogues had naked 13 year old girls in them then maybe, but they don’t. You just can’t help bringing in all sorts of red herrings can you? The rest of your argument, which rests upon your own ridiculous theory, and not anything I said, is therefore irrelevant.

2. I didn’t miss the point about the history of art at all. I’m not going to retroactively do anything, another straw man. What I said was that they had different values back then and that we don’t live by the same values now, nor would we want to. Your argument in a nutshell is that if it was OK then why is it not ok now? Besides being so childish and inane, you forget that kids were married at 12 and 13 only a few hundred years ago.

3. I dare to speak on behalf of all children. Partly because I have a daughter of that age, but also because it is everyones responsibility to look after child welfare. It truly does take a village to raise a child.

4. Young people may know what crime is but that is irrelevant. We aren’t talking about child criminals and I have no idea how you even bring that into this debate

5. I find it rather alarming that you consider it "normal" to have pictures of other people’s naked teenagers. I can just about understand those who can tolerate it in the name of art, but “normal, that’s just off the charts.

Bronwyn you are a fool. Let me show you why. It's really funny actually, have you not read a single post here? Your post is like a regrown hydra head in this thread. It's the one that represents the ignorant bigot and it's amazing how many times it regrows and with such ease.

Bronwyn>"There are actually people in the art world...who are uneasy"

Idiots exist everywhere. This is irrelevant.

>"It's time to end the artificial divide"

The divide is not artifical it is a natural divide created when an ignorant fascist walked into a gallery and called a naked child pornographic in nature.

>"Steel, the history of art might be full of..., but any work of art must be considered in its historical context."

A naked child is a naked child. Period. And how is the historical context different, from say last year? This is hilarious....Also, explain the historical context of last few years, when this was never a problem.

>"It is only now, not in any former time in history, that we are facing an unprecedented epidemic of child abuse."

I WANT A !@#$ing CITATION. thankyou. I've seen that socialist slogan many a time and i never see the proof. You really think during the laissez faire period of the 19th century and earlier, or under feudalism that child abuse was less than now?!?? Really? You must be supremely delusional to believe that. Child abuse was a way of life. How is that for historical context? Well, at least you've proven your opinion is based on propaganda and not simple application of logic and reason. Your statement reveals a guarantee that you can not or have not thought critically on this but are merely regurgitating propaganda of the socialist organisations. Regardless, whether or not child abuse is prevalent in society is irrelevant, but that is another fact I will explain later.

Fractelle: "Henson's art is stunningly beautiful and we would be poorer without this beauty. The same cannot be said about true porn - it exploits our sexuality. I know this is a generalisation about porn; I am trying to make a distinction between it and the work we see in art-galleries.

Art makes us think, porn makes us hungry."

Beautifully put. That was a great post.

Vanilla

That was very kind, I was inspired by the link you provided.

Bronwyn

I respect you very much, while I do understand your concerns I am disappointed to think how negative you are about our current sexual climate.

For example, we are far more enlightened now, than back in the Victorian era, when the mere sight of a woman's ankle was considered erotica. I can understand that in many ways it appears that a Pandora's Box of sexual licentiousness has been opened since we became more tolerant - media, advertising and pornographers are definitely exploiting our weaknesses and fears. However, I believe this is just a part of the maturation of our species. I like to be positive and think that there will be a time when we are so accepting of our human selves, that our sexual desires cannot be so easily manipulated, and, therefore, exploited for lust or profit.

Then we will look back and admire the art of people like Henson and wonder what the fuss was all about.

And porn will be much classier too.

;-)