CJ,

You really are a piece of work. You whine about the insults of others whilst insulting whoever you like.

Tammy-Jo’s argument has a lot of validity. Far more than your pathetic suggestion that those who wish to protect the child in this instance are in a moral panic. There is nothing remotely “dumb”about suggesting that a 13 year old has a less developed brain than an adult. And your obtuse suggestion that somehow a 25 year old is equivalent to a 13 year old because they may both have underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex’s is illconsidered and tiresome. Further, the language you use in your attempted negation of this highly valid point is offensive. There is nothing at all “dumb” about the argument Tammy-Jo made. What is dumb is your inability to stick to the issue and raise objections in a reasoned, deliberate and polite manner, rather than just slag people off. Especially given your predilection for calling others to account on this issue.

I would like to see your evidence to suggest that the abuse of children is not more widespread now that it was in times gone by. We live in the age of instant gratification and the primacy of rights over responsibilities. Anything goes. The vapid and selfish cultural revolution of the sixties made doing whatever YOU pleased into an artform. We live in a time when individual selfishness and self importance is greater than in any time in our recent history.

You say >>” As is the conflation of the age of consent for having sex with posing as a nude artist's model. Posing for an artist is not the equivalent of having sex, no matter how some people associate them subjectively.

I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that posing nude is the same as having sex. That’s your spin on the issue. What a number of people have suggested is that when it comes to making long term decisions about your body, like getting a tattoo, plastic surgery or posing naked, the age of consent seems like an appropriate point to draw a line.

TBC

cont

You have admitted you wouldn't allow anyone but an artist of Henson’s stature to photograph your child naked. Whilst I find this unpleasant it seems you accept that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere; that it isn’t normal or natural for people to take photos of other peoples naked teens.

Even you would surely acknowledge that there is a point at which a child doesn’t have the ability to consent to this kind of permanent exposure. Be it 13, 9 or 6. That you can castigate others for drawing a line for good sense and good taste which differs to yours, just shows your contempt.

This is NOT about what paedophiles think of the pictures. It’s NOT about whether it turns them on. I don’t imagine there are millions of paedophiles, or that viewing the picture will turn people into paedophiles, it’s about protecting the child from a decision which may have long term and unintended consequences. And about unambiguously drawing the line so that no paedophile could take advantage of the “its art” defence

steel says >>” Children were basically slaves. You should learn some history before talking about it.”

I’m ROFLMAO at this. Mate you really should take your own advice. Whether children were slaves or not, that doesn’t provide any evidence that they were sexually abused on a similar scale to that which children are today. There was no net, no phone, no way for paedophiles to organise in secret to abuse children the way they do today. Further, only a few hundred years ago children of 13 years of age were considered of marriageable age. Your point that because it was OK back then it should be OK now is inane and extremely short sighted.

Steel says >>” The amount of reproductions of said picture has no impact on it's content”

This is another furphy. In the past Art was the realm of only the very wealthy, who often had entirely different moral codes to the plebs. Further the morality of the plebs was irrelevant to those who ruled the state.

CJ Morgan- you state: " . . . clearly, people shouldn't be allowed to have sex until that age. Sorry, but that's a really dumb argument."
As is the conflation of the age of consent for having sex with posing as a nude artist's model. Posing for an artist is not the equivalent of having sex, no matter how some people associate them subjectively."

O.K. smart ass- could you please logically and calmly point out where I was even refering to sex in any context. It was you my friend who read something into my post. And you don't think you have a problem?

TammyJo (and Paul), if adolescents are presumed to be unable to consent, then why do parents (and others) consult with them at all? "They can't give informed consent", remember? I can expand this if you want to argue ;)

-=-=-
Paul>"Whether children were slaves or not, that doesn’t provide any evidence that they were sexually abused on a similar scale to that which children are today."

Where is the citation I asked for that you and Bronwyn have not provided?

1. I used the term child abuse and so did Bronwyn. Learn to read?
2. Assuming sexual abuse only, it's still nonsense. It ignores what is probable. The fact that children were practically slaves indicates the attitude and rights afforded them. It's guaranteed they were routinely sexually abused.

Paul>"There was no net, no phone, no way for paedophiles to organise in secret to abuse children the way they do today."

No, instead there were the common streets and venues... The centralisation of the internet and phone arguably actually reduce the prevalence, because every pedophile doesn't require 'their own child'.

Paul>"Further, only a few hundred years ago children of 13 years.....Your point that because it was OK"

I said nothing about that.. What's funny is, if you consider that child sexual abuse, then you are disproving your own claims you began with at "I'm ROFLMAO....that doesn't provide any evidence that they were....". You disproved your own comment.

Paul>"In the past Art was the realm of only the very wealthy, who often had entirely different moral codes to the plebs. Further the morality of the plebs was irrelevant to those who ruled the state."

How do moral codes change the content of a picture....you didn't address this. Or do you assert that the "plebs" had the "correct morality"?

Lastly, to those claiming an epidemic without citation and presumably their reference point is the time mid-last century when there was no reporting, it is a fallacy. In other words... Just because more people are reporting them does not mean the incidence are increasing. the only thing increasing are the reports.

Truly bizarre, but I guess we're discussing issues that transcend rationality for more than a few people. That Paul.L's latest rabid spray at this stage of the debate is so angry and aggressive indicates that he's one of them, as does TammyJo's charming attempt to score a point:

<< O.K. smart ass- could you please logically and calmly point out where I was even refering to sex in any context. It was you my friend who read something into my post. And you don't think you have a problem? >>

If TammyJo would care to google the phrase "age of consent" she'll quickly realise that the term usually refers to the age of legal consent to sexual activity, which is the sense in which the term has mostly been used in this debate.

If it's not sex that's bothering the wowsers, censors and hysterics about this storm in a teacup, then what is it that upsets them so about this art? Those who say it's about protection from child abuse are also fundamentally concerned about sexual abuse, as are the crowd who claim that Henson's art is pornographic.

This is a classic example of a moral panic, and some people seem only too happy to be sucked into it.

In yesterday’s Courier Mail there is a large article on Henson accompanied by a half-page-length colour photo of one of his 12/13 year-old female models, fully nude, with a red band across the breasts with ‘çensored’ written on it, and…..wait for it….the pubic region fully exposed!!...just partly obscured only by the shadow of the girl’s arm and the dim lighting.

What the ….??

Since when has it been appropriate to print large frontal nude photos in a newspaper?

What is the Courier Mail trying to tell us here? That practically anything goes in the name of news and that restrictions should only apply to art??

Talk about DU…PLICITY!!

I also note that neither this photo nor any mention of the article appears on the CM website. Huh? Why not, given the very high profile of this issue at present? Every other major news item is covered there.

It seems that the newspapers; the Age first and now the Courier Mail, are very strongly trying to push the boundaries to the point where they WILL be charged and placed in the same position as Henson….perhaps in a show of support for him, and the notion of much freer expression of nudity.

If that be the case, I would support it in principle....except that it must surely be blatantly illegal!

So where’s the police action on this? How can they possibly allow this stuff to be put in our newspapers, when they have taken such strong action against exactly the same stuff in an art gallery? Have the police realised the folly of their actions against Henson?

Fascinating!!