Dear_Fractelle..

you_said:

"I gave the above example of your disrespect for other's opinion because it was the very first time you had responded to me since I registered on OLO."

YET....the first_thing you ever said 'to me' is this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7005&page=0#106303

"You consistently post some of the most divisive and vilifying comments on OLO, I had a christian upbringing and you are an embarrassment to all that is good about christianity - although you are an exemplary model of all that is bad.

I apologise to all other OLO readers and posters for succumbing to commenting on this deviant christian."

-You are an embarrasment.
-You vilify.
-You divide
-You model ALL that is 'bad'....
-Deviant Christian

Fractelle.. It takes a while to notice people.. that was just your EIGHTH post.. you were hardly on my radar until you started ripping me to shreds out of the blue.

I've posted something like 3500 posts before you came onto the scene..and the things I write are often continuations of things which have considerable history. Next time you could try "Can you explain why you feel that way" before tearing me to bits:)

So..when you attack me.. with no less than 5 'names' and you say that I epitomize ALL THAT IS BAD....

I would think that a 'r u fractured' (referring to your argument) is pretty mild by comparison.

CJ... don't pidgeon hole us together. We each have our own tradition and understanding. We don't represent 'Christianity' in any generic sense.

Runner made a good point I feel in his last post.
Graham also has worthy points.
There is no RULE to which we can look other than doing for others as we would have them do for us.

The only RULES applicable to Gentile Christians can be found in Acts 15.
They do include 'don't practice immorality' and we have to define what that is. Art?

Pictures of nude females are not 'sex b4 marriage' nor 'adultery' but perhaps contributing to 'lust?'.
Sanctified common sense and Democracy:)

runner claims "Share with us the ignorant blinded ones the benefits of displaying the breasts and vagina of young girls?"

I've not looked at much of Hensons work but I have seen an electronic copy of the image of the 13 year old girl which has been at the center of this debate along with some of Henson's other work. The pubic region in the perticular image was in deep shadow, runner much be using some pretty advanced image processing software if he can see a vagina.

"Would you be happy for her photo to be hung in bedrooms throughout our nation?" As far as I'm aware the image was hung in an art gallery. Were large sized framed prints for sale? Is runner aware of a single person who has a print of Hensons photo of the girl hanging in their bedrooom?

In that particular post runner has not stated that he was refering to Hanson's photo of the girl so he may have some wiggle room but what I think he is trying to do is attempting to link a much stronger case to one where what he desribes does not apply.

I'd be very concerned if Henson was displaying images of teenage girls vagina's in his photo's and then selling prints suitable for for hanging in the bedroom.

The work I've seen is much more respectful of the subjects than that.

R0bert

CJ

Your question regarding "the "fundamentalist" belief - that his (Henson's) images are perverse, pornographic and intrinsically abusive" extending into the mainstream is pertinent. People like Ginx and Paul L have demonstrated shocked reactions to Henson's work, whether they are at the same degree as religious extremists, I am not sure. But their reactions to nude art, specifically that of children, must have at its basis a type of orthodoxy. 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?

Boaz

I stand by everything I wrote in that post. I have not claimed that you are intellectually incompetent as you have me.

I still find your interpretation at the extreme and fundamentalist end of the christian religion. That is what I was attacking - the manner in which you present your religious beliefs as being the only correct ones.

That you take my comments as personal speaks volumes about you. I do not know you, I can only form an opinion on what you say on these forums. And what you say about your version of christianity is nothing like the religion as I was taught at school and on Sundays. I attended an Anglican church, not the evangelistic variety with which you are affiliated.

I guess without your religion to support you - you have nothing else. A form of addiction I guess. As Vanilla and others have noted many times - you do your religion a disservice.

Fractelle: << Your question regarding "the "fundamentalist" belief - that his (Henson's) images are perverse, pornographic and intrinsically abusive" extending into the mainstream is pertinent. People like Ginx and Paul L have demonstrated shocked reactions to Henson's work, whether they are at the same degree as religious extremists, I am not sure. But their reactions to nude art, specifically that of children, must have at its basis a type of orthodoxy. 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? >>

Quite so. While the prudish rants from e.g. runner and Gibo were perhaps predictable, I'm surprised that they haven't made some attempt to justify them by reference to Christian teachings. Perhaps Boazy's relative equivocation with respect to Henson reflects, if not greater "intellectual competence", then at least some acknowledgement that it's not an issue that has a specifically Christian dimension.

As you suggest, the sheer vehemence of secular decriers of Henson like Paul.L, Ginx et al did come as a bit of a surprise. Both Paul and Ginx made violent allusions in their comments about the topic - which of course did nothing to advance their arguments (if anything, such references only serve to discredit those who make them).

Of course, most people managed to present their ideas - whether pro or con - in more reasonable ways. However, I am still trying to work out why it is that so many secular and otherwise intelligent people seem to have such an ingrained antipathy, indeed abhorrence, towards works of art that present no moral or ethical challenges to so many others. I don't think anybody's born prudish, but it seems pretty obvious that there's still an awful lot of puritan socialisation occurring in our society.

I know some people are offended or threatened by my line of enquiry, but I suspect we're far from hearing the last of this moral panic yet, and I'm genuinely interested in trying to understand it.

CJ

Could the 'climate of fear' be part of the equation? People believing there are paedophiles behind every shrub on the way to school, when, in fact, we are just more open and vociferous about the crime. The internet has provided a means for paedophiles to organise - which is scary.

However, the overreaction by some is perturbing. Clearly, as Graham pointed out it is not purely a Christian perspective.

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.

I don't think prudes are born either - just a throwaway remark. Prudes are made by fear and ignorance.

I believe that many people see the photographing of naked 12 year olds as not only perverse but also stealing a person's childhood. Many films and magazines portray to kids that their main value is as sex objects. Expressing ones gender (eg femininity) is different from expressing ones sexuality. Puberty is difficult enough for kids without having 'inquisitive' minds asking you to strip so you can be photographed nude. We have stupid and naive parents who encourage young girls to cover themselves in makeup at younger and younger ages in order to be popular and accepted. Allowing and encouraging your kids to pose nude is the next step in the depraved nature of man.