Fractelle: << So my vote is on fear - if you want people to behave very conservatively, give them something to be afraid of. We have a population that is so frightened that it can't distinguish between nudity and sexuality. >>

Indeed. And sexuality itself is suspect under this moral panic where there's a paedophile behind every shrub and under every kid's bed, and every toy doll grooms little girls to be "cute" and "cool" (yet somewhat paradoxically a current hit movie celebrates promiscuity among adults). That is not to say that paedophilia and "sexualisation" of kids aren't real phenomena, rather that societal fear of the former and acquiescence to the latter are both manipulated via mass media representations that sensationalise them.

Keep them scared and they'll respond to populist, philistine platitudes such as we heard from virtually every political leader (except, notably, Bob Brown and Malcolm Turnbull).

runner: << I believe that many people see the photographing of naked 12 year olds as not only perverse but also stealing a person's childhood... [bla bla bla] ...Allowing and encouraging your kids to pose nude is the next step in the depraved nature of man. >>

runner, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you haven't ever said actually why it is that an artistic photograph of a 12-year old is "perverse", or how it "steals a person's childhood" etc. You present your personal belief as a self-evident fact, as if that's that - because runner's decided so.

I suspect that Graham is quite correct, in so much as runner's rants on this topic might well be "interpreted" as fundamentally constituting expressions of the Calvinist notion of "total depravity", of which he probably isn't even explicitly aware.

However, as I've said, all that's quite predictable - what interests me is if, and if so how pervasively, these ideas permeate secular thought in the context of the current moral panic.

And then of course there are the psychoanalytic aspects.... :)

Oh, I dunno CJ. I've heard that photographs steal a persons soul, so I guess it stands to reason that they can steal a persons childhood.

Steal a Soul Bugsy ? actually there is more to that than we might think.

Those who have no questions about erotic teenage nakedness may not see it, but really in all this we are also speaking for the offspring of the models, who as yet have no voice.

Some of would 'project' onto their offspring, our 'enlightened/tolerant/liberated' viewpoint and feel they would have no discomfort at images of their mother or father on public display for all and sundry to gawk at. But there is a distinct chance they they might also feel considerable discomfort and embarrasment.

Perhaps this is an angle which should be considered?

CJ the fact that the pro/con opinion is distributed among both we 'religious whackos' and 'atheists' should bring up the issue of values/socialization and enculturation.

Perhaps the Christian morality is deeper in our common pshyche than some would like to admit, even among those who do not specifically confess Christ as Lord.

Apart from some moral reference point, it does not really matter if teenagers, children or grandma are portrayed not just naked but in all manner of conceivable posture and in combination with other people or.. dare I say it..animals.

I mean..the only barrier to such a direction is our enculturated sensibilities which, having no anchor (for the atheist) can be shaped and moulded even by debates like this.

A casual glance at the images on the walls of pagan temples and a scrutiny of the horrific practices or cruelty, homosexual and heterosexual cult prostitution, and violence in the name of the various deities should remind us of one possible cultural destination if we get on the wrong train.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacchanalia

Having said all this, by way of exhortation, it remains true that the only Biblical principles (there is no 'law') which seem to have bearing on this are:

-Be filled with the Spirit not with wine.
-Avoid things tending to lust.
-Responsible guiding of younger lives, treating young women as sisters in all purity.

How one applies these, if at all, depends on one's relationship or lack thereof with the Savior.

How does photographing a 12 year old girl regardless of what they are or are not wearing take away their childhood? I would think you are capturing a 100th of a second of their life and preserving it for eternity. This girl is probably from a nudist family and doesn't have the shame others have with the naked body. Many people who grow up as nudists enjoy looking back on photos of their childhood.

Boaz, nudity has nothing to do with lust. Most sexual lust occurs when the subject is fully clothed.

If prudes like Boaz and Gibo (Now known as Gibo2) are so anti nude, how do you shower?

Steel man.. who said we are anti nude? You are just blurting out the nearest "bash a Christian/conservative" myth you could lay your hands on mate.

Nudity between married people and in families is normal. Walking down the street bare_breasted at 15 is not.

It is a psychological fact that next to self preservation the strongest instinct is self propogation. That inevitably involves the physical union of male and female.

The 'trigger' for that union is multi faceted.

-Visual stimulation.
-Opportunity.
-Relative sexual readiness condition, including age, attire, beauty etc.

Good grief.. do you have to re-read every history book on sociology just to work out that bare skin is a bit of a turn on?

The issue is more about 'how much' is culturally appropriate and acceptable so as not to cross the boundary between finding people 'interesting' as a potential mate and as a sex object for short term gratification of lustful desires. (which of course you never have right? :)

As I've said.. this whole area is not possible to tie down to some LAW or rule.. the Bible gives guidance in principle only and relies on common sense.

The Jewish rabbi's tried to add and supplement and lay down a 'law' for everything in life and ended up declaring (in some cases) that betrothal is based on intercourse with a child of mimimum age of 3 yrs and 1 day. Believe it or not, orthodox Judaism still supports this view and if you did some digging in the USA among orhtodox communities you will find some 'unusual' ideas do in fact prevail. (no..this one is not 'anti semitic' stuff like the protocals of zion..its real)

Steal Soul... I offered an explanation for that in my last post.

Some bright spark at school finds out your mum was the model, when she was 13 and gives that models daughter or son hell.

"Oh look at ur trashy slut mummy" (and a host of other things your imagination can work out) kind of thing.

My common sense tells me it's better to avoid such things and possibilties.

Fractelle

"So there are non-religious who hold values that are puritan in nature. Have they been influenced at an unconscious level by religious dogma? Or were they born prudish?"

I've stayed out of this debate as I felt it was directed more at the Christians who denounced Henson's work.

As an atheist and someone also critical of Henson, I have been drawn in though by this particular comment!

The answer is an emphatic neither. As stated I'm not influenced by religious dogma. I am not a prude, nor do I hold puritan values. Though from an environmental viewpoint, I do see the frugality often associated with Puritanism as desirable if we are to save our planet from self-destructing. But that's another debate.

My motivation on this issue, and it was stated ad nauseam by myself and others, is purely as a response to the changing state of modern western society in regards to the exploitation and sexualization of children and the way in which I see Henson art feeding into that in an unhelpful way.

I have great respect for the arguments of those like yourself and CJ, but in this particular instance I do resent the way you have narrowed the opposition down to wowserism, prudishness, religious fundamentalism and now Puritanism! You can deal with this as you wish, but I want it on the record one last time that you are totally wrong when it comes to people like myself. And also people like Ginx who is away from OLO at the moment, but who otherwise would no doubt be flying into you here in no uncertain terms!

I don't wish to restate my position on Henson as I've repeated myself enough already, but I just had to object one last time to this narrow pigeonholing of his critics!