The assumption that these images are for some kind of pleasure is wrong. They're beautiful in the artistic sense that photos of anything can be beautiful, but there's none of the hair, make up and provocative poses we associate with photos for pleasure or desire. They're nothing like the ones in KMart and Target catalogues.

For the kind of person who has trouble keeping their eyes on a woman's face they would be rather disappointing.

Where clothing catalogues are concerned there is a real argument about the sexualisation of children, but with Henson's images the sexualisation is going on in people's minds. Since so few people have actually seen them it seems some are capable of sexualising the mere idea of something, which is very clever of them. At least a table leg or pepper grinder can be said to look like something. Seeing sexualised body parts in thin air is really quite amazing.

Chainsmoker, you are a bastion of excellent sense.

Boazy, 1. No one goes in to art photography for the money. After thirty years, Henson is justly celebrated, but I doubt he makes much money. 2. When did I mention mozzies? I was pro the publication of those cartoons, which I've said a million times — is that what you're talking about? Someone else brought that up. 3. "the atheists are turning on each other" Atheists are not a homogeneous block, Boazy, and if there are three in a room there'll be four opinions, no doubt.

Pelican, thanks for responding & for your good humour. I think we're at agree-to-disagree stage — I just can't agree with that Henson is "using kids to promote his art in the most unsavoury way".

I think perhaps Lolita is a better literary equivalent than Lady Chatterly — although Lolita is actually about pedeophilia, whereas Henson's pictures aren't.

Ginx: I'm sure you're right in your personal assessment of me, although I can safely say, and I'm sure you'll heartily agree, that I'm not an intellectual, genuine or otherwise. I've barely got a undergrad degree. But I am passionate about certain things. Particularly about the hypocrisy of religious and secular moralistic bookburners, like our PM and the NSW police force, who ban art, then do nothing about the real causes of child sexual abuse.

Belly: "I will bet my last dollar most who complain have not even seen the photos. And never seen or understood the mans work."
I'm sure you're right, Belly. The war cry of the banners seems to be, "I don't have to see it to know it's wrong!" Can anyone tell me why they think that? I know the bible is wrong, but at least I was polite enough to read it first.

Dear Pelican,

I fully agree with you. There is no question that Bill Henson is a
talented photographer and I too can now see where his work would appeal to many. However, it goes against my grain as well in this instance - I too don't consider images of underage naked children as being appropriate subjects. But that's just my opinion and as Pelican said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor will I go out of my way to destroy the credibility of those who don't.

Your lack of logic is one constant in this ever-changing world of ours, Boaz.

>>FASCINATING.... the atheists are turning on each other :) Ginx is having a feeding frenzy on Vanilla!<<

It probably doesn't occur to you that atheists can actually disagree with each other. Typically arrogant, you assume that every atheist thinks the opposite of godbotherers, and therefore must form the same opinion amongst themselves.

One of the really liberating things about non-religious people is that they are able to make up their own minds, and not have some stranger who claims divine inspiration make all value judgements on their behalf.

I feel particularly sad for Catholics, in situations like these. They are told what to believe by people who are the least able to bring any human perspective on the issues, celibate priests.

So fight on, Ginx and Vanilla. I respect your right to both have, and voice, your own views.

Foxy, I believe that last phrase was directed at me. As I have said on the last couple of posts I've directed to you, I have great respect for you. I would like the opportunity to explain to you why I've posted what I've posted in more detail, preferably privately. If you are up for it, please email me at butwehavegotworldenoughandtime@gmail.com — there's no pressure, of course, and I won't expect anything, but if you are up for it that would be great.

There is a male poster here who seems to be quite comfortable about these photographs. Not so long ago (in a totally innocent and unrelated context) the poster revealed that he had a 12 year old daughter.

I wonder if he would care to advise whether or not he would be prepared to have his daughter photographed naked and put on public display
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 24 May 2008 9:29:59 PM

You know who I'm talking about, CJ Morgan. Do you find the question all that difficult to answer?