Steel,

You say >>” if adolescents are presumed to be unable to consent, then why do parents (and others) consult with them at all?”

That isn’t a negation of our claim that children of 13 are unable to consent. Parents consult very young kids on things to include them in the decision making process. It is evidence of nothing other than inclusion. You can expand all you want on this topic but it is highly unlikely you will be able to come up with anything coherent.

There is an age at which children are not responsible for their decisions. Our courts recognise this. In qld it is an offence to leave a child under 12 alone for extended periods. In NSW there is also a rebuttable presumption that a child aged between 10 and 14 years of age is doli incapax. Clearly society considers that children are not capable of

1) looking after themselves
2) properly understanding the long term consequences of their decisions.

You say >>”where is the citation I asked for that you and Bronwyn have not provided?’

Do your own research you lazy pr1ck. Its not my responsibility to prove something that you want proven, that’s your job. You provide citations for your arguments and I’ll provide them for mine. All we know for sure is that reporting of abuse has, without a doubt, steadily increased since records were kept.

cont,

con't

We are talking about nudity in art. Your point was that it’s been happening for ever. My point is that just because it used to happen doesn’t make it right now. So as an example, I noted that hundreds of years ago children were married at that age. That doesn’t mean that they should be able to marry at that age now. I don’t look back and apply the morality of today to the situation which existed hundreds of years ago. Four or five hundred years ago your average person might only live to 40. That is one reason they married earlier. So I don’t consider that abuse at all. And your pathetic celebration of an imaginary contradiction is moot.

You say “How do moral codes change the content of a picture....you assert the plebs had the correct morality”

I’m not asserting that anyone had the correct morality, merely that the ruling classes in many eras during the past have been shockingly immoral. You are attempting to argue that if it was OK to paint nude kids back then, it should be OK now. That’s an incredibly inane, and in fact naïve, suggestion. I’m not even convinced that it was ok to most people back then. But just because it happened in the past doesn’t mean it should be ok now. If you used your brain you could think of thousands of things which were once ok and no longer are.

Societies standards of good taste and decency are not written in stone. A picture which in one era was considered obscene may no longer be considered so today. And vice versa.

Finally, you haven’t offered any evidence of your claim that child sexual abuse is no more common now than it was hundreds of years ago. It would be a very difficult thing to prove either way as there were no records kept. However a great deal of other anti-social and taboo activities have increased since the urbanisation of the industrial revolution gave many people spare income and leisure time and reordered thousand year old societies.

I'm only adding this because quite a number of people have remarked about child abuse being more widespread now.

Its not quite true that no records were kept. Extant court transcripts, pamphlets, journals, wills(!), books etc. even the presence of the ubiquitous "village idiot" (who was often a product of incest) do in fact support the idea that unfortunately, it is no worse now than it ever was: simply that it is more reported now. If we go back BCE, of course, to a time when children were simply smaller versions of adults, it was part and parcel of life.

Paul, the 'law' is incorrect and contradictory. Things don't suddenly happen at certain ages because the law dictates it. A child one day older than their 12th birthday can suddenly be left alone in queensland for extended peiods, but not the day before? One day the parent will be punished, the next they will not? Ridiculous. Appeal to law all you want but it doesn't change that law is often bull!@#$. Many adults give alcohol to underage children and feel perfectly justified in doing so. Furthermore your admission that many parents put stock in the child's decision-making processes is proof that law isn't clear cut. The law in this case is merely to protect the child from government forcing them to do something they do not want to. Lets say you find a child lost from their parents in the outback who says they have been wandering since dawn. You have to temporarily abduct the child with or without their consent to rescue them or render aid. Do you hence leave them alone to die because they can't or won't consent?

Paul>"Do your own research you lazy pr1ck.Its not my responsibility to prove something that you want proven"

Yes it is actually. Your assumption that I have not checked is wrong. I couldn't find proof of it, and am asking. Nothing I have said requires citation because I'm not making extraordinary claims that amouint to propaganda.

Paul>"You...argue...it was OK to paint nude kids back then, it should be OK now."

I am saying that it is ok then for the same reason it 'should be' ok now. That a naked child is not sinful or sexual for merely being naked.

Paul>"I’m not asserting that anyone had the correct morality, merely that the ruling classes in many eras during the past have been shockingly immoral."

By implication that sentence implies that the "plebs" were moral, which is contadicting your beginning denial...and just because you say the ruling classes is "shockingly immoral" does not mean that they were so in the case of naked children in art.

"It's not my responsibility to prove something that you want proven, that’s your job"

Hang on. Did the tradition of actually backing one's statements up with evidence suddenly become passe?

That'll make millions of uni students ecstatic.

Steel,

I’ll find evidence for the points I make and you can do likewise. You have not proved to me that the incidence of child sexual abuse has not increased considering reporting has definitely increased. Indeed you insist instead on assumptions founded upon wobbly “evidence”.

steel>>” 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.

This is worthless as evidence of anything. It seems to me that this is you talking out of your @rse. So I challenge you to prove it. By your logic, you have to prove it to me.

steel>>” I am saying that it is ok then for the same reason it 'should be' ok now. ”

This is not what you said initially.

steel>> Can you explain how a naked child's body is innately offensive and indecent, … And if it is so, how can you explain the history of art, which is full of naked adolescents?

What you are saying is “if it’s offensive now, why wasn’t it offensive then”. Or something quite like it. I’ve put this silly argument to the sword already.

steel >>” Things don't suddenly happen at certain ages because the law dictates it.”

Well actually that’s the point. The law draws a line so that everyone is treated the same. You don’t suddenly become capable on your 17th birthday of driving a car, nor on your 18th of responsibly exercising your vote. We as a community decide that a line needs to be drawn and we draw it as best we can. That it is imperfect does not absolve us of the responsibility of making the decision.

steel>>” By implication that sentence implies that the "plebs" were moral,”

I think you used imply once too often in that sentence.

Labour stalwart and former Arts minister Barry Cohen points out that>>” The question is not whether the photographs are artistic or pornographic but whether Henson breached the law by photographing an underage, naked young girl.” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23793765-7583,00.html%3Ffrom%3Dpublic_rss