I've followed the Henson saga and debate here and elsewhere and am curious about attitudes to the taboos re teenage sexuality.

Hensons pics push the edges of our taboos. I don't think that he sexualised his subjects, but he sure as eggs portrayed the sexuality of his teen subjects in the 6 or 7 works of art I saw.

The most common defense of Henson seems to be premised on 2 points; repression of artistic expression and that the antis are victims of and/or proponents of sexual repression. I partly buy both these arguments, but am interested in peoples ideas on the practical reasons behind the taboos.

Seems to me that parents in our society recognise that our children are still developing intellectually, emotionally and sexually and for this reason do not challenge taboos on teen sexuality.

Our society needs time to educate kids into its technical complexities and we do not want them breeding too soon.

We need the energy and creativity of our youth to produce, not to breed.

We are all too aware of those who prey on the naivety of youth and who would take advantage of them in an unequal way.

We are in love with love and wish romantic love for our kids.

Any others, any comments?

Interesting post, palimpsest. However, I'm not sure that I know exactly what you mean regarding "taboos" regarding teenage sexuality. Yes, we have legal ages of consent to sexual behaviour, but these vary somewhat according to the relative ages of sexual partners (and their relationship to the teenager) and also whether or not the sexual activity is heterosexual or homosexual.

In my experience, and vicariously that of my older children, actual sexual activity with peers begins well before the age of 16, which is the most common age of consent in Australian states. Parents and educators are well aware of this, which is why adolescent kids are typically provided with, or able to access, information about reproduction, contraception and STDs well before they turn 16.

Any "taboos" in this respect that I'm aware of tend to involve sexual relations or pornography between minors and adults. My understanding is that they exist for moral and ethical reasons that reflect the overall society's concerns for protecting children, rather than for any overtly functional purpose. During our relatively short history, the moral and ethical standards of our society have changed dramatically, reflecting variously religious, secular and other ideologically dominant paradigms of the day. Of course these are reflected in both legislation and in popular debates (and silences) that concern morality - particularly of the sexual variety.

For example, it's not very long ago that sex between adults outside marriage was generally regarded as "sinful", and the progeny of any such relations were officially labelled "illegitimate".

[cont]

[cont]

<< Hensons pics push the edges of our taboos. I don't think that he sexualised his subjects, but he sure as eggs portrayed the sexuality of his teen subjects in the 6 or 7 works of art I saw. >>

By virtue of the current controversy, I've now viewed a couple of dozen or so of Henson's images of adolescent models, and of those, I think that only those that feature both a male and female model have any hint of actual sexuality (even then, mostly with clothes on). The others seem decidedly asexual to me - particularly the nude image of the 13-year old female model that caused most of the hysteria.

It's a slightly haunting and very beautiful portrait of a young girl, but I think that the only "sexuality" in it has to be in the eye of the beholder.

But maybe that's its point.

hi to all the forgotten australians

well i just want to have my say

i feel it wrong that children of and under the age of 16 should not be exploited fair enough take photo's with their clothes on not while they are nude ,

why does a person have to be nude for these photographers,

i feel it is a breach of the child welfare act

be honest how many sicko's out their would be taking advanantage of what bill henson has shown ,
i can only hope that when the gallerys show the photo's they have every one's name on record who attends and brought tickets , or is that not a concern ,

and in another sence this is harsh but this maybe away some pedophiles maybe caught i can only hope for the later

bill i think its wrong exploiting our young this way as it is an open invation to the pedophiles out their

in another sence the law is diffrent for an art photoghrapher ?

so why is that ?

if their is a law for protecting the innocennce of a child why are such photo's allowed ?

my opinion is im disgusted in knowing the parents even allowed this to happen

we are the forgotten australians and will no longer be forgotten

regards huffnpuff

Taboos on childhood/teenage sexuality are probably justified. Taboos on nudity are not and probably have the opposite of the intended consequences. By equating nudity with sex you send the message to young girls that they are pieces of meat and must be covered up.

In the name of art: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211513342

Hi Palimp
yes.. when it comes to this area of life, the waters become rather muddy and blurred, and the criteria for evaluationg the moral quality or acceptability of a piece of art seem to be as diverse as there a people offering opinions.

Even when it comes to Biblical foundations, there is nothing specific which we can say is 'The Law'...There is no commandment 'Thou shalt not display nude children' or.. "after the age of such and such, you can display child nudity in art"

Perhaps this is why Jesus mostly spoke in flexible generality and principle, leaving us to work out detail?

There are stages.

-Observing nudity.
-Captureing nudity on some media.
-Displaying Nudity in public.
-Displaying nudity and seeking financial reward for it.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/dkiss/art
is an example of the last one. I wrote to him and this is the reply:

<<Hi David,
I have an exhibition live in Collingwood at present, and offer the images for sale as single prints at A4 size for $50.00 each>>

So.. in this case we might wish to ask what is the age of the model?
I appears in this case she/they is/are a fully grown adult.

As soon as the idea of financial reward enters, we are faced with the issue "What might a person/artist/businessperson' do to enhance sales?
In which direction might they go to achieve this? To what would they make their 'art' appeal in order to sell it?

We have "Taboos"..."thou shalt not's" for usually good reason. The basis for them might be: "God said" or..it might be a myth in which the given behavior is shown to have negative outcomes.

But whichever, there is usually a cumulative wisdom behind it.

The 60s brought a rejection of all that cumulative wisdom, to be replaced by 'miuaug' and most seem to have been doing that ever since.