The assumption of people like Gibo and PaulL is that normal men and women in Australia are pedophiles. That fallacy is the basis for their argument and it simply falls flat on it's face. Normal people do not have sexual reactions to children. It's an asinine proposition, much like saying a heterosexual male will be aroused by a naked man.

Adolescent girls and boys bodies exist and they are beautiful, however adolescents should be left alone in the activity of exploring their expression of that beauty just as they should be left alone in the activity of exploring their expression of their sexuality.

It's not up to adults to deem naked adolescent bodies intrinsically at all.

Tell me what peadophile doesn't consider their actions to be celebrating the beauty of an adolescent or child?

Adolescent's are not supposed to be naked in front of adults. To allow for that situation 'in the name of art' or anything else is to allow any peadophile the opportunity they seek to abuse any adolescennt, or child allowed in that situation

There is no risk to a naked adolescent or child in front of an artist who is not a peadophile but there is every risk to them in front of the artist who is a peadophile.

How does one distinguish the difference? Trust?

Trust is exactly what many a peadophile achieves in order to establish their opportunity to abuse an adolescent and/or child.

Adolescents experience enough confusion about their sexuality and if, when, how, why, where and/or with whom to safely express it and they certainly don't neeed to be further confused about whether it's ok for adults to observe their bodies for certain types of pleasure in certain types of circumstances.

Increased confusion only serves to increase opportunity for a peadophile to take advantage of that confusion.

Adults looking at naked children for whatever their type of pleasure may be (i.e. beauty and/or porn) is not ok in certain types of circumstance (such as in the name of art) or any circumstances at all.

"Adolescent's are not supposed to be naked in front of adults. "

Well that's rubbish. It's the natural state of humans to be naked.

It is natural for humans to be naked.

Just as it is also natural for humans to fornicate.

It is not natural and/or lawful for adult humans to derive pleasure from naked images of children humans.

Just as it is also not natural and/or lawful for adult humans to derive pleasure from fornicating with children humans.

Hi Vanilla

I was not offended by your post, just arguing my case is all. :)

In response:

I am not sure I would say art "should" be brave but it CAN be brave and confrontational and take risks. It can be all those things. I am not asking Henson to take responsibility for the corporate world's exploitation of children to turn a profit - but he is doing similar - using kids to promote his art in the most unsavoury way. This is not brave - but confrontational it certainly is.

I have looked at his work, I am not a great fan but can see the artistic merit and why it might appeal. His work is a bit dark, a bit too shadowed in parts but that can be effective if the subject is suitable. It certainly has a brooding haunting quality which seems to be his trademark.

Photos of consenting adults is not the same as photos of underage children. I just cannot approve of using children as nude subjects. It just really goes against the grain for me - no matter how unpopular that stance might be. Having photos of your own kids nude in the bath within the security of your own home is hardly the same as displaying them for all to see in an art gallery.

No matter how you dress it up, giftwrap it or spin it, these pictures are inappropriate. That is my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree.

TRTL
As far as I know Lady Chatterley's Lover did not include any sexual scenes involving children. To compare this kind of 'art' to censorship of books like LCL is to minimise valid concerns.

Afterall we are a long time an adult - nothing wrong with preserving childhood for the wonderful stage of life it is. This does not mean keeping our kids in a bubble but assuring as best we can that they are exposed to experiences as their maturity and development allows and that they are not exploited along the journey.

“It is NOT acceptable for the police to have let the paedophile Priests be charged because of their upright reputation because they had got away with it before.”

Runner, this is not a parallel example to the Henson case.

Henson’s reputation had nothing to do with the fact that the police didn’t act on his exhibition in 2004/5. And so it shouldn’t have. Their failure to act was based entirely on the content of the exhibition, which was deemed to be above board….with the help of public opinion which was totally supportive, with not one complaint out of 65 000 viewers.

Just a tad different to the extraordinary pedophilic priests phenomenon.