Vanilla- I would also like to thank you for your informative links. I can clearly see you are trying to present a well rounded view of this issue.

Bronwyn- I completely agree with your take on this issue. Thank you for articulating this.

Steel- Get back in your box.

Bronwyn>"I can clearly see you are trying to present a well rounded view of this issue."
TammyJo, this is for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground (false compromise)

As for supporting Bronwyn when i've shown there are severe contradictions and flaws in her statements, well, what can i say? It's either a willful denial or a deference to ignorance, which is rather silly. Perhaps you should get an education.

Now back to Bronwyn's post:
-=-=-
Bronwyn>"a photographic image of a child today in our culture is not the innocent portrayal it might have been in other periods"

Excuse me, but you don't speak for anyone but yourself. How you presume to speak for others is both arrogant and disingeuous. If you see something sexual in pictures of a naked child then you are a pedophile by definition. Furthermore if you truly believe this then you must remove all images of naked children immediately from the public record. Why? Well, your comment here suggests there can be no innocent portrayal of a child and hence all existing images are sinful/constitute child-pornography.

>"The damage is done.....due largely to the aggressive corporate sexualization of children..."

You are right about the damage, but wrong about the cause. Advertising and the media have nothing to do with it. They are not mind control. You socialists really have a problem understanding that, don't you? Ok I'll play though. Why aren't all these children killing people because of what they see in movies and games? Care to explain? Well i can: media and entertainment ARE NOT MIND CONTROL.

>"And this girl will live with that for the rest of her life."

She was perfectly happy to do this and has defended the work, as has her mother, who has accused you people of doing the damage. It's all your fault for reacting like fascists and forming a lynch mob.

>"the chances are high in my view that she would one day regret"

She regrets nothing and has said so. No model has regretted it. Get a clue and listen to the models rather than imposing your own imagined pain onto them.

Steel

"You really think during the laissez faire period of the 19th century and earlier, or under feudalism that child abuse was less than now?!??"

Yes I do. Besides which a photo of a naked 13 year old girl hanging on a gallery wall in the early ninetenth century would have been viewed by a very small percentage of the population and it would have been the educated genteel class at that. Today such an image can travel the world and find its way onto millions of computer and mobile phone screens and be viewed by who knows who and for who knows what purpose. It might start its life as high art but the artist soon loses control over its use or misuse.

"If you see something sexual in pictures of a naked child then you are a pedophile by definition."

I myself see nothing sexual in photos of naked children but unfortunately millions out there do.

Fractelle

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

I'm not negative "about our current sexual climate" as it applies to consenting adults, but I am concerned about the rampant levels of child abuse. I just feel it's time we questioned the widespread acceptance of imagery sexualising children. I know it can be debated ad infinitum whether or not the photo in question fits into this category, but in my mind it's very presence is an unhelpful blurring of the boundaries and just further feeds into the whole exploitation and commodification cycle.

The adult world today in my view is impinging heavily on the freedoms of childhood. His use of the term "revolting" might have been wrong, but I agree with Kevin Rudd's plea to let children be children and enjoy their childhood.

Steel- you reply:

Bronwyn>"I can clearly see you are trying to present a well rounded view of this issue."

Oh for heavens sake Steel- why don't you and your self masterbating intellect try to quote correctly.

You further state:

>As for supporting Bronwyn when i've shown there are severe contradictions and flaws in her statements, well, what can i say? It's either a willful denial or a deference to ignorance, which is rather silly.. .

I am more than happy to defer to your ignorance.

Now, go back in your box!

“Hiding away from our natures causes most of our sexual problems. Some can look at a naked body and see it as disgusting is a sad state for our culture and future. We urgently need to accept ourselves as we truly are.”

Absolutely Fractelle. The whole concept of nudity being offensive is just so incredibly artificial… and absurd. The requirement to wear bathers on a public beach rather than go au-naturale is just completely spastic. The inability to go naked on your own property if you might be seen by neighbours of passers-by is beyond ridiculous.

It is this requirement to cover up that is perverse. It does indeed lie at the root of much of our society’s sexual dysfunctionality.

We desperately need to free up.

“…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.”

Yes. There should be whole lot more nudity in art, and exposure to non-pornographic nudity in the general community. Let’s demystify the nude body and make it perfectly normal and acceptable. The work of Bill Henson, Sally Mann http://www.google.com/search?q=sally+mann, etc should be celebrated, and not looked at sideways with any sense of inappropriateness.

Of course, we shouldn’t go over the top. So those who don’t agree, don’t jump to the end of the spectrum in your responses. We just need to shift the balance a considerable distance towards more openness – to a point that would well and truly accommodate the work of Henson and Mann.

Stuff the paedophiles! They can get all the imagery they want these days, very easily. We shouldn’t in any way be held to ransom by them.

Great posts Ludwig and Fractelle.

What I think Bronwyn is saying, and I think she has a point,is that this is a furore here now because of the exposure in the last few years of children being abused. There is a real climate of looking for the paedophile bogeyman in every adult who might look at a child, or even touch a child. Though I doubt very, very much that child abuse is more prevalent now. It is now openly acknowledged that it happens, in the past it remained hidden.

As I've said before, I think this is because of a feeling of helplessness and guilt many of us feel that this is happening and apparently so prolifically. The point though, is that paedophiles are not created by looking at pictures of naked children. We should not have to tippy toe around because there are people around like that. To my mind that legitimizes their 'victim' status, they can't help themselves so the rest of us better make sure there are no 'triggers' around that might make them 'bust'.

Children are rarely sexually abused by complete strangers. This is what makes it deeply unsettling and distressing for us as a community. What can we do that would make children safer in their own homes, their own environments? Child sex abuse is not going to be stopped or lessened by banning work from legitimate artists like Bill Henson.

His works depict the human body as beautiful, mysterious and for some unsettling, both in the case of adults and children. They do not exhort to commit depraved sexual acts.

What I find deeply distasteful is the immediate exploitation of all the media of the tittilation factor by displaying photo's, supposedly pornography, ad nauseam, as news. That was pornogrpahic. As Ludwig wants to know, why aren't each and every one of these TV channels and newspaper people put on notice?

The ABC programme, on the other hand, warned what the subject was about and it was televised late at night, so adults had a chance to make up their own minds.