Paul.L: << 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? >>

palimpsest began the thread by saying he is "...curious about attitudes to the taboos re teenage sexuality", which I took to be a broadening of the discussion beyond Henson's images, that palimpsest suggested "...push the edges of our taboos".

My understanding of the colloquial meaning of "taboo" is in accordance with that of the Macquarie Dictionary, i.e. "forbidden in general use; placed under a prohibition or ban... a prohibition or interdiction on anything, exclusion from use or practice". Ergo, I took palimpsest's interest to be those circumstances where teenage sexuality, or aspects thereof, might be forbidden, prohibited, banned or excluded from accepted social intercourse (so to speak).

What I was trying to get at is that about the only aspect of "teenage sexuality" that is actually "taboo", seems to be the depiction of it. While our society doesn't necessarily condone the actual sexual behaviour of a majority of normal teenagers, we acknowledge that it exists and generally adopt a kind of de facto 'harm minimisation approach', and hope like hell our kids don't get hurt, pregnant or infected in their sexual and emotional explorations.

[cont]

[cont]

The irony in this, as I've said elsewhere, is that Henson's images are generally distinctly asexual in content and composition, unless you ascribe inherent sexuality to nudity. Henson's images that I've seen could only be sexual, erotic or pornographic if the observer implicitly equates the naked body with sexuality, no matter how deliberately the artist has shaded and obscured the very parts of the body that arouse such interest in those inclined.

I said this at the beginning of this debate, and Paul.L still doesn't realise it, but it is he and those of his ilk who are actually "sexualising" the adolescents whose bodies are at the centre of the controversy. I find it strange that intelligent adults can be so obdurately prudish regarding a few relatively asexual artistic images, while simultaneously holding relatively sensible attitudes to the actual sexual behaviour of teenage kids.

Still, I guess it makes for interesting conversation :)

"I find it strange that intelligent adults can be so obdurately prudish regarding a few relatively asexual artistic images, while simultaneously holding relatively sensible attitudes to the actual sexual behaviour of teenage kids."

I understand your pain but where do you actually get convinced that "adults hold relatively sensible attitudes to the actual sexual behaviour of teenage kids" while detailing childish reaction of the self same adults to some pictures

IMHO the "obdurateness" is mainly manifest in the general attitude to that horrible word "morals", which In My Humble Definition simply says:

to make sure no kid of today "goes further" than the assessor of the morals when that assessor was young

I rest my case

Thanks for the responses.

Agree CJ, should have said 'some of the 6 or 7 pics show the subjects sexuality'.

Seems to me that we (society) are only now facing up to the elephant in the room that is paedophilia and Henson is caught up in this. And that a lot of the arguments I've seen mix the two subjects.

Paul L my experience is that kids get quite modest at the onset of puberty. And their sexual experiences do not get raised at the dinner table.

CJ, I'd suggest the only reason sex ed. exists in schools is because (in general terms) we perceive that sex ed in the home has been inadequate. Our Victorian standards have not totally disappeared tho'.In all this discussion I'm yet to see a frank comment on the nature of early teen sexuality. As PaulL says Henson himself is happy to state that this is his subject, and reading a few reviews of his past shows the reviewers have been happy to acknowledge this too.

I'm happy to agree that nudity does not equal sex (go see a Julie Rapp exhibition} but I wish the pro brigade would not obfuscate on this subject re Hensons work.

CJ

You say >>” The irony in this … is that Henson's images are generally distinctly asexual …, unless you ascribe inherent sexuality to nudity, Henson's images …could only be sexual, erotic or pornographic if the observer implicitly equates the naked body with sexuality,

Yet the irony is that you also said, >>” I didn't say there was nothing sexual about the pictures - I say that they're not pornographic. There's nothing wrong with art that explores the transitional stage between childhood and sexual maturity”. CJ Morgan, Thursday, 29 May 2008 10:27:00 AM BILL HESON: ARTIST OR PORNOGRAPHER?

Which is it? You say they are asexual unless you ascribe inherent sexuality to nudity. This is the same thing as saying there is nothing sexual about the photos unless you are perverted. Yet you later contradict this statement and acknowledge that the artists’ interest is in the beginnings of sexuality in pubescent children. That after all there is something sexual about them. Your earlier attempts to suggest that babies possess the same sexuality as pubescent children was ill-considered and frankly laughable. Babies can’t have babies; pubescent children can and their bodies and personas develop commensurately.

I tend to agree that the pictures probably don’t deserve the tag “pornographic” but “exploitative” and “inappropriate” are tags I can live with. The photographer has admitted that he is interested in the awakening of sexuality in pubescent children. Whilst I agree he does not pose them in an obviously provocative manner, the nudity clearly indicates that it is this budding or blossoming of sexuality that interests him.

You say>>” What I was trying to get at is that about the only aspect of "teenage sexuality" that is actually "taboo", seems to be the depiction of it. While our society doesn't necessarily condone the actual sexual behaviour of a majority of normal teenagers, we acknowledge that it exists and generally adopt a kind of de facto 'harm minimization approach “

TBC

cont',

But this is not a reasonable comparison. The general public does not find it acceptable for ANYONE to have sex with a 13 year old child. For example, a man the age of the photographer would be literally skinned alive if he were to have sex with a 13 year old girl. That is highly taboo. You are comparing apples and oranges. Your comparison may have been valid had the photos been taken by the teenage boyfriend and not placed on public view.

Finally, you say >>”I said this at the beginning of this debate, and PAUL.L STILL DOESN'T REALISE IT, but it is he and those of his ilk who are actually "sexualising" the adolescents whose bodies are at the centre of the controversy

Given your regular contradictions on this matter I would say it is incredibly arrogant of you to suggest that I am not REALIZING “it is he and those of his ilk who are actually "sexualising" the adolescents whose bodies are at the centre of the controversy”. Just because you said it doesn’t make it true CJ, or have you not yet grasped this key development. You haven’t proved anything, quite the contrary, you yourself seem confused. That you don’t realize that the above is just an opinion and not an absolute fact is astonishing in its ignorance. This kind of statement might be appropriate if you were declaring the sky to be blue, but you are a world away from the concrete certainty of this proposition when you imply that your opinion on this matter is an incontrovertible fact.

Worse, the idea, that it’s my opposition to this exploitation of children for the sake of “art” that sexualizes children, is laughable for its arrant stupidity. Further, the very idea that 13 year old kids aren’t already aware of their developing sexuality is naïve. Lastly I would note that for many millennium children discovered their developing sexuality without any input from me or the rest of the anti-exploitation crowd.