What amazes me is that there's actually a debate about it. You can't even take a camera to your kids game of whatever on Saturday morning to film your child's first goal, point or success. How could this guy be surprised that even just taking images of under 18's wouldn't line him up for a paedophile label. Someone ignorantly or justifiably interpreted his images in a sexual connotation and complained. Big surprise. Someone saw Noddy and Big Ears as homosexuals and successfully got those books banned. That sort of person is who you're talking about here.

Art is all about interpretation, and SO MANY are blinded by whatever history they have they couldn't see the art for the image. If he takes images of under 18's he must be a paedophile. It's that simple for the majority. I actually haven't see the images. From what I've read and been told there isn't really anything sexual about them. He is just someone else for them to burn at the stake. Throw his images on fire just like the books you've burned as well.

well I for one have not been following this but as I understand it we are talking to something similar to I think it was David Hamilton who did movies of young girls "discovering themselves" and the movies got put into the "adult" category at video stores etc

but has anyone here mentioned that if a power femminist like Greer does this in her book The Beautiful Boy there is no mortal game to complain.

as she said "I suppose they will call me a pedophile, but I dont care"

exactly, she didnt NEED to care as Mr Plod was not about to defy Pru Goward etc and crash into Secret Wimmins Bizness

To me THAT is the Hypocracy of our precious society for last 45 years, ie since PC forced the change of the name of the comic strip Dagwood to Blondie

STG... most illuminating post from you...

<<You can't even take a camera to your kids game of whatever on Saturday morning to film your child's first goal, point or success.>>

You're not actually 'criticizing' others beliefs which have now been imposed on you... r u ? :)

Now..wouldn't that be terrible if u did.. because the H word would then come to mind in regard to your tearing me to shreds in another thread.

If the objects of my own rather frequent critical voice gained more power, you can bet there would be a HECK of a lot of things "you can't" even do.

But perhaps ur one of these people who just 'wonders what happened' rather than one of MAKES it happen?

cheers

Criticizing others beliefs which have become an imposition on my existence is vastly different to being a self proclaimed staunch Christian but being seriously intolerant of other religions. Buddy. I didn't 'rip you a new one' because you criticized Islam. I called you a hypocrite becuase of your intolerance.

"Judge not lest ye be judged".

Take it somewhere else.

StG: "Art is all about interpretation, and SO MANY are blinded by whatever history they have they couldn't see the art for the image."

What an excellent way of putting it.

David. You are getting creepier by the minute. Why are you linking to erotic art of women who are clearly not underage? Meanwhile, your reply to StG doesn't even make sense.

CJ,

I don’t actually see how it is important that kids are having sex at ages younger than 16. The laws across the country vary but if you are the same age as the consenting partner and over 10 then mostly you are not breaking the law? But how is this relevant to the discussion of taboos or child nudity?

Most of us give our teenagers space when they are going through puberty to allow them to cope with the changes they are going through.

I wouldn’t, and I don’t know who would, photograph their pubescent child in the nude. With a daughter of roughly the same age you would know yourself that as a child becomes pubescent they generally stop wandering around without clothes. They actively seek privacy and don’t react well when it is breached. I wouldn’t, for example, walk in while they were getting dressed.

You say >>” it's not very long ago that sex between adults outside marriage was generally regarded as "sinful"

I wonder if you think that means all taboos will eventually disappear. Do you think pedophilia is going to be OK any time soon? I don’t bring this up because I consider the pictures to be pedophilia, merely highlighting the pointlessness of your line of argument here.

CJ >>taboos are ..” moral and ethical reasons that reflect the overall society's concerns for protecting children,” I agree and I place the photographing of naked teenage children in this category.

My point is that the author himself acknowledges that he is exploring the subject of pubescent children and their awakening sexuality. I think the photographer is intruding into a private area for no good reason.

STG,

I think you’ll find that the greatest book banning recently has been carried out by the PC brigade who have attempted to “clean up” our reading and writing by replacing many words and concepts with PC alternatives. This has been a project of the left of the political divide. But in this case it is mostly those on the right of the spectrum who object to the photos.