Those who molest children are well organised
statistics reveal one in 4 children get molestered

They are very clever , and very organised[just going down the listed postings any TRUE childmolester would take heart that he could send some filthy pictures and expand his [or her ] network.

Many will have heard how to boil a frog to death [apparently the same procedure with child molestation small steps [heat the water gradually

That is the danger of this mild form of porn
it begins to cross the clear line , thus NOT with under-age children

Has this 'talented ''artist photographed old people ?[age is supposed to be just as 'beautifull']

or even legal aged models look fine [and would be fine
[but a clear line must be made here and no further]

we have a legal age ,those who get off on these pictures have made them selves known ;if only to each other ,
we have set bounds for good reasons

If you ever looked at art [say a landscape , and imagined , you must realise that those who gaze at nakid children are getting off on the same imagining ,

Except imagining being in a land scape isnt the same gazing on a child[no matter how 'good it makes you feel ,its perversion]
live with it

if you want to photo nakid people use appropriate age models
art is art
porn is porn

no matter how soft
children isnt art
times change
and children are off the menu
get over it,

peddeling nakid pictures of children gets you jail time
what you chose to call art others know is the first step into perversion

Anne Geddes had better watch out now. All her cute calendars and greeting cards may have to be recalled and her work isn't even regarded as "art" as much as entertainment.

If some people can't look at anything without seeing sexual overtones then why haven't her saccharine-sweet baby photos been classed as sexually provocative yet? Is it a matter of age or a matter of taste?

What next - stubbies on Michaelangelo's David?

Having seen a post from one under God signed by the head of TAPP I ask who is posting this time?
PaulL can it be you are not aware a man not the father can not put his arm around a girl no matter how upset she is?
That people with dirty minds have driven many male teachers from the job?
This fact is hurting us all religious nuts are having far too big an impact on our world.
A pedophile any pedophile should be imprisoned for a very long time, forever in my view.
Bleeding hearts care far too much for them and far too little for the victim.
But to say a nude is dirty? to ignore the true art is blindness and strange as it sound those same people complaining often call for lessor time in prison for the criminals.
I will bet my last dollar most who complain have not even seen the photos.
And never seen or understood the mans work.

To all.....

I find it quite noteworthy that the most sophisticated defenses of 'artistic licence' appear to be connected to the 'artistic use of sexualization' and 'breaking boundaries in the area of sexual mores'

I still don't know how henson depicted these kids (except the Viet)..but in 'PRINCIPLE'.. Paul L has it on target.

-Repuation
-Money

If you find those 2 dark hands at work in the artist..then "beware* of any use of sexualization which is described as 'boundary breaking' 'innovative'....'challenging'...

cos..people...it's "ALL ABOUT THE MONEY"

and of course, THAT category of people were the ones hunted out by Jesus from the Temple. "you have made my holy place a den of robbers and thieves"

There are many 'temples' in life, and Sex is one of them. Yes..it CAN be 'pure/holy/wonderful'... but it ALSO can be 'prurient, depraved, distorted and used for base purposes'

So, all interested parties need do is asses Hensons work with these things in mind.. and in spite of Vanilla's spirited (but which spirit?) and eloquent defense of his work.. see it for what it appears to be in terms of (to use the common legal basis) 'what a normal reasonable person' would see.

It said 'normal reasonable person' see's SMUT...then.. no matter what else is said.."IT IS SMUT" :)

PAUL L...notice how you, as an atheist (as far as I know from your writings) get quickly 'slotted in' with we 'fundy, loony, nutter' Christians :) just because you have some reasonable opinions about the sexualization of children.

Hmm who mentioned 'mozzies' in this thread? me? Oh wait..it was Vanilla :)

But don't worry dear V... just blame me anyway.. it always feels better that way doesn't it? :)

Paul.L asks
"Are you suggesting that naked pictures of children on a pedophiles computer should be legal? Because it sounds that way to me."

What I'm saying is that I think unhealthy attitudes about the human body caused by religiously inspired body taboo's are a significant contributer to sexually deviant behaviour.

Deviant behaviour is behavious which does not respect the other party, behaviour which is about seeking your own gratification above the welfare of the other party.

R0bert

FASCINATING.... the atheists are turning on each other :)

Ginx is having a feeding frenzy on Vanilla!

Peace..peace u lot.."blessed are the peacemakers"

disagree, but try to be more friendly about it k :)

Just deal with facts... not emotions.

Ginxy..careful mate, you will make 'me' look farrrr tooo 'good' here. (but thanx anyway)

Robert.. I never cease to be amazed at your convoluted and extensive reasoning when it comes this area of life.

"The heart of man is wicked and deceitful, who can know it?"

(Jesus.)