....Yet Again. Do we live in a democracy or not? Who is not being listened to here? Those who support freedom and find social engineering repugnant in a democracy. One complainant has engineered this whole saga, much as in prior cases of censorship.

The media had it's controversy and made it's money, but now has apparently been instrumental in the outcome here as Henson and others practiced for decades.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/child-art-needs-taste-test-minister/2008/07/23/1216492541130.html

As you may have seen, this comes almost at the behest of the religious, the feminists* and socialist/consevative types who share the ideals of authoritarianism and social engineering of the Australian citizenry.

"The Australian Christian Lobby welcomed the Government's actions to protect children. Its national chief of staff, Lyle Shelton, said the organisation had written to the Prime Minister this month requesting support for such changes."

* moderate feminists may be in denial about their instrumental role in most censorship. here is but one example of what and who really drives feminism today and it's corrosive effect on the minds of many men and women and how it damages society.

This blogger,
http://allecto.wordpress.com/to-men/
writes:
http://allecto.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/brian-hensons-art-is-sick/
(note the tags etc.)

The context here is remarkable. This is what true feminism is and where the power lies. The moderate feminists (and religious) are irrelevant and they are actually enablers with their ignorance.

What is so harmful about non sexual nudity?

Throughout history these regimes have outlawed the nudist movement:

Communist Russia
Nazi Germany

Please help me to expand this list.

There is nothing wrong with nudity at all in my own opinion.

I am generally against censorship except where it protects another from infringement of their own freedoms (such as defamation) or protecting children from sexual exploitation or other forms of abuse.

"This is what true feminism is and where the power lies."

Steel, I don't think that blogger you provided links to is at all representative of the feminist movement. Her approach is much more aggressive and dictatorial than that of your average feminist. I'm not convinced either that radical feminism has any real influence in western society today.

I do support the following statement of hers though and feel it clearly encapsulates the reservations many feminists have over Henson's work.

"What I noticed about his photographs is the fact that all of his models are white. They are pimple-free with glossy hair. The female children sometimes wear make-up. The male and female children are photographed together in sexualised senarios. None of the children are fat, none of the children are happy or playing. They are often photographed in a studio with no or few clothes on, few props and dark lighting."

You forgot to read my last sentence in that paragraph carefully Bronwyn -perhaps you've skimmed over parts of what was linked to or written. You can deny it all you want but as demonstrated time and again, it is happening right in front of our eyes in plain sight, albeit usually behind the scenes and in disguise, much like Radovan Karadzic. You are witnessing a real feminist in action beseeching other extrmist feminists into signing a petition against Henson, presumably to be forwarded to the government as mainstream concern. You can't deny it except as a lie, because it's a fact. This feminist is but one of countless others trained to react to the sexist and extremist ideology and deluded by it.

That quote by the way is specious and emotional rubbish. How does the presence of "darkness" abuse a child? All children who model wear makeup. The child in question hadn't even had the time to develop pimples because puberty hasn't run it's course. You've been played

Dear Steel,

Nudity and children is a controversial
issue, as we all know from
the recent Henson controversy, which
has been debated both on this
Forum, and in the media.

We get very emotional people on both
sides of the fence. And like the issue
of religion, drugs, or capital punishment,
there will be people who will never see
eye to eye on the topic.

To condemn or label anyone because they don't agree
with us however, is not very constructive.
Our society is a democracy and everyone is entitled
to their opinion.

However, having said that,
I do agree with you when others opinions are
being rammed down your throat it becomes
a problem. The tightening of the National
Classification Scheme (if it happens) is a
concern.

The Executive Director of the
National Association for the Visual Arts, Tamara
Winikoff, expressed concern that changes were
not being sought in a climate of good judgement.

She felt that the laws already in place were quite
sufficient in protecting children.

Let's hope that opinions such as hers are listened to,
and that nothing is changed without much deliberation
and consultancy.

Steel

"That quote by the way is specious and emotional rubbish. How does the presence of 'darkness' abuse a child?"

Neither I, nor the author of the quote, used the term 'abuse'. That was you adding your own spin.

Our concerns relate to how these images feed into the premature sexualisation and exploitative marketing of children and the general stripping away of the carefree innocence of childhood. We're also justifiably concerned at the imposition of destructive and narrowly defined mores on what constitutes feminine beauty.

"All children who model wear makeup."

I guess they do. And somewhere along the line we have now reached the point where very young girls are routinely targeted as consumers of makeup. You mightn't have a problem with this but many do.

"The child in question hadn't even had the time to develop pimples because puberty hasn't run it's course."

Irrespective of the fact that pimples and blemishes do not wait until puberty has 'run its course', the author's point is a valid one. Why are these photos taken in dark lighting and artificially touched up, if not to impose adult standards of perfection or what is considered desirable or alluring onto images of chidren?

"You've been played."

I don't think so, Steel. I do think though that the patronizing arrogance in this little comment says more about you than it does me.

A political minister passing judgement on art?. You're right, smells like Nazi Germany, or Sharia to me too. What's next, we've all gotta hang a picture of the PM to show our 'patriotism'?.

This from the the original link:

"Last week the classification board approved the July edition of Art Monthly magazine, which featured a naked image Olympia Nelson, then aged six, on the cover, taken by her mother Pollixeni Papapetrou, just as it had also approved images of naked adolescents by Bill Henson a month earlier."

That statement is LOADED with venom aimed at the classification board.

Do we need naked images of 6 year olds?....well no, but also depends on the context. Do we need a political minister passing judgement on what constitutes art and if those images are IN context?...definitely not. A political minister will base his/her judgements on what will avoid controversy and as previously stated by others, various agenda driven entities will be in the ear of the 'minister for social appropriateness'.

Picasso does nothing for me, but I won't stop you from seeing it....

It wasn't all that long ago, in the 1970's, I can remember a clothing adverstisment (I can't remember the brand) which has a slogan: "Wear (whatever brand it was) or nothing". The poster featured a man and a woman wearing that brand of clothes, and a young boy and a young girl in the nude, full frontal. No one protested about this. This advertisment appeared in various magazines and posters were displayed in shops.

I've never known such puritan standards in my life time, and it would appear that we haven't been this bad since the Victorian era.

What next? Ban all child actors because they might turn on peadophiles?

I think our current censorship standards are fine. It allows child nudity in context and in art work (ie: nudist magazines, photos of native tribes). It adequately protects children from sexual exploitation by banning real child pornography (ie children being sexual abused. Being nude is not sexual abuse).

Just think of the problems if it was illegal to require a child to undress. I would have loved that as a 7 year old. My mother couldn't have forced me to have a bath.

Art is extremely subjective.
And to grasp it fully it usually
should be viewed in its historical context.

I don't have a problem with nudity, I've
studied art for more than five years at
the tertiary level. However photos of
naked 6 to 12 year old children being presented
as art objects, in today's world - does disturb me.

Changing National Classification Schemes however,
is something that needs
to be done with good judgement
and careful consideration,
if it needs to be done at all. The current laws
as I understand it -
are more than adequate.

Steel or "Steel Mann" (not sure whether you're one person or two different people here), read your own posts. You sound like an obsessed ideologue. You sound as "ideologically driven and non-thinking" as the very people you are trying to complain about. You're using the silly "politically correct" terminology of the right wing, along with ridiculously inbred stereotyping of people with whom you do not share the same ideological outlook.

If you "really" want to be taken seriously (instead of just venting), then cut out all the stupid "ideological dogma" and GERT REAL!

The sexualisation of children in the media and art , by adults (usually "male" adults), is NOT a political or ART issue.

It's a "SEXUALISATION OF CHILDREN" issue. Get it? Obviously not!

Phillips,

I am a different poster to Steel. I call myself Steel Mann as the name Steel was taken when I registered on this forum. I agree with Steel on his posts on this topic however, the fact we have similar names is just coincidence.

I also am totally opposed to the sexualisation of children. It's just that I don't see nudity as sexualisation. I speak from a point of authourity. I know nudist children, and nudist adults who were themselves nudist children. Many were photographed in nudist magazines over time and have no problem with it. We resent armchair experts on the matter interferring with the way we chose to raise our children.

Much of the criticism of our lifestyle comes from Christians, (of which I also happen to be), but they ignore the child abuse (and I'm not just referring to sexual abuse, mainly to spiritual abuse) that occurs with the upbringing of their own children. I would say that a bigger percentage of children have been sexually abuse through church involvment that those involved in the nudist movement.

The VAST, VAST majority of people pushing for acceptance of child nudity in art are.......yep you guessed it folks, MEN. That's always been the case.

They love their "child" nudity in print. They can couch that "love" in all the politically correct terms they desire in order to make it more acceptable, but the fact remains they "love" the depiction of nude "underage" children. The important thing for them is that the child is "nude", "near nude" or photographed in anything "other" than an innocent childhood type pose.......oh and being "underage" is very important to them.

When talking of their "love", it's usually couched in terms of "freedom of speech", "it's art", "anti-censorship ideology", "it's 'really' not sexual but natural"........all the usual crap you normally hear. They certainly don't want people interfering with their "love". Yep, they just adore their "underage, child nudity in print".......after all it's "art". Sure, and Larry, Curly and Moe are the Two Stooges.

The nudist movement, and the depiction of nude underage children in the name of art, are two totally different things.

"Natural" nudity, in the home, shower, on a designated beach or outdoor area is just that......."natural" and perfectly normal. This is NOT what I, and people who think like me, are talking about.

Underage children "posing" nude, specifically for publication, in the false name of "art"........that's what I'm talking about. "Pretending" there is zero sexual content in that, just like the silly "freedom of speech" argument, shows a lack of "real" concern and understanding on the subject. Some people consider their "rights" as freedom to do whatever they choose......that extends to their attitude towards nude, underage children being photographed for publication.

Phillips,

Weren't the photos of Olympia Nelson taken by her mother? What about photographer Sally Mann? (No relation or connection with my OLO name), she does a lot of nudes involving children (mostly her own).
These are only ones I know. Maybe there are more men who photograph naked children (eg David Hamilton & Jock Sturgess) but perhaps there are also more male photographers in general.

Yes, I find naked children beautiful. I also find puppies and kittens beautiful. I like photos of beautiful landscapes, of trees and of flowers in bloom. I like photos of cars, aeroplanes and machines.
I like nice buildings and other man made features. But see nothing sexual in any of these.

ALL human beings, from cradle to grave are "sexual". A child is most definitely NOT non-sexual in the manner of a man made object. You just can't compare a nude child to an automobile.

Using that sexuality, by saying that it's "not" sexual and merely "art", shows a grave lack of understanding of sexuality, OR , an understanding of it but "I'll do it anyway" attitude.

It an unfortunate TABOO to mention that children are sexual creatures. It's a FACT that they are. Using that sexuality to profit is not right. Using that sexuality in so-called art (at the same time denying the sexuality) is not right.

Underage children need the time and space to be CHILDREN. Exploiting their sexuality, for the purpose of so-called art or profit or adult pleasure, is simply NOT RIGHT.

We need to protect our children.

Thanks for your reminder in your first post, Foxy.

phillips,thank you for expressing your opinion in this post here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2005&page=0#41421

...as it is good proof of your extreme, emotional prejudice. It also supports my initial post about the profile and motivations of the antagonists of the pictures.

I may sound like an idealogue to you and some others, but I have based my opinions on concrete facts unlike you. If the naked child is sexual, then you will have to retroactively destroy all art and paintings, such as Michaelangelos chapel and other religious works, right back into the dark ages. You would have to destroy all images of naked babies, or censor them.

You need to check your opinion again. It has nothing to do with the photographs at all, and everything to do with what you imprint the photographs with yourself.

Bronwyn>"That was you adding your own spin."

Hetty said the parents and photographer should be charged with child pornography. Abuse/exploitation/sexualisation are the issues raised. Call it whatever you want my comment is still valid.

As for the pimples. 1.Some people have great skin, particularly children. 2.Makeup covers pimples. 3.My point was that puberty must *start* (in this case it barely if at all had). How old was the girl? Saying that the absence of pimples contributes to sexualistation is absolutely ridiculous and shows the need for equivocation to design a case to attack. Regardless, going into such detail is obscene and I have little stomach for it but it's necessary unfortunately in this case.

Yet again, all who attack the photographs are deliberatly ignoring the very people who are the subjects of the photographs, who were happy with them until abused by the public witch hunt and made to feel immoral and unwelcome in society. The children themselves. You people have done the damage, treating them like objects and mindless entities unable to consent, and *that* is what is disgusting and damaging.

It is you people who see naked children as pornographic and depriving them of the right to be naked in art, who are the abusers.

Steel

"Hetty said the parents and photographer should be charged with child pornography. Abuse/exploitation/sexualisation are the issues raised. Call it whatever you want my comment is still valid."

No, it's not valid. The views of feminists like myself and the blogger you linked us to are very different to those of narrow-minded crusaders like Hetty Johnston. I've made enough posts on this topic now for anyone who can read to easily decipher the difference. I'm happy for you to attack my views and will rigorously defend them, but make sure they are my views, and stop lumping me in with others who argue from a completely different standpoint. As pointed out by other posters, this is a nuanced debate. Start treating it like one, Steel, or you'll be left shouting to yourself.

Isn't 'shouting' supposed TO BE ALLCAPS? Perhaps that's more about the way you read my comments. Regardless, it is not a nuanced debate in my opinion. It is a corrupt, repressive agenda utilising several idologies (including Islam). Sure you may have good intentions, Bronwyn, as a moderate, but you have to understand the core motivations and the circumstances in which this has taken place, and the people responsible for it. I recommend you read this website a little. You are playing into the hands of the Islamist and Christian extremists:

http://libertus.net/censor/index.html

Good evening Folks...

I know nothing about art...nothing at all. However, with a multitude of desirable 'subjects' available to these artists (in whatever medium), I find it somewhat curious that any artist would feel it necessary to use a naked child as a subject. In order apparently to illustrate his or her artistic talents ?

Further, I find it just as curious, that a parent would permit their young child to pose nude for an artist ? The thought of a child of mine, disrobing in the presence of, or for an artist, is utterly repugnant to me.

We live in times of ever increasing incidences of serious sexual offences perpetrated against the child. Parents need to exercise ever more vigilance with their children lest they fall prey to one of these disgusting child molesting creatures.

Surely there'd be no one who'd disagree with me on this issue ?

Yet there are those amongst us that would argue, to photograph/paint etc. a young child in the nude is OK ! Providing of course it's for the sake of art ? Hell, as I stated at the beginning, an artist has a multitude of subjects available to chose from. Why then, choose a young innocent child ? Or is it a case of 'the forbidden fruit, is more often the sweetest' ?

I think the thing that gives me the clap about this topic is the narrow minded bigots *cough cough phillips cough* that can't tell the difference between non-biased bigger picture thought processes and paedophilia fan-boy driven sicko club.

You and ya book burning mate Gibo need to start your own fairie and unicorn populated Utopia with nothing but bibles and fairie floss to digest. Sod off, and leave the real world to people who can count past 888. It's a bible number.....nevermind.

Who showed them how to use a keyboard?.

Can it get more "bogan" than that stupid post by SIG?

Paedophilia and naked children are NOT the same things. As I have previously stated, there is a place for nudity. SIG, go back and read it, "if", you actually can read properly and possess any intellectual capacity at all.

There is NO place for posed, nude photographs for profit, or for "falsely" so-called "art", of 6 year old girls. Family photographs and the like are a TOTALLY DIFFERENT thing......obviously.

If "some" people here are too thick to realise these things.........then they have a real problem.

Let our children be children. Protect our children.

We are so gone as a society that "some" amongst us have become desensitised to the commercial sexualisation of underage "CHILDREN". It's amazing that someone like me, is even put in the position of having to defend "childhood" against these jerks.

Let kids be kids........that's not hard to understand!

phillips, there is aplace for such art. There has been one for hundreds of years. You can also elaborate on your comment about profit, because it suggests you are heavily socialist.

Furthermore, your attempts to attack StG for being one of a class of people you obviously look down show that you have deceitful intentions driven by greed for yourself and the agenda of those you closely support and parrot.

phillips>"We are so gone as a society that "some" amongst us have become desensitised to the commercial sexualisation of underage "CHILDREN"."

This is about Henson's artwork. Your statement here further indicates you are picking your slogans off of the scrap heap of your ideological agenda and throwing it at Henson's way and those who oppose censorship.

phillips>"defend "childhood" against these jerks.
Let kids be kids........that's not hard to understand!"

So now you are defending a concept? Is it a socialist view of childhood, or something more reasonable and closer to reality?

You are not defending these children in the slightest, as they are perfectly happy with the work and remain proud defenders of it. That is, they were spared psychological pain of societal abuse and our 'PM' Rudd's disgusting attacks on these children and their parents.

It is actually you phillips who are attacking and abusing the children for your private, socialist (or fascist) agenda. The public villification and exploitation of them in and by the media and those like Hetty and our Prime Minister of all people has been unforgivable and harmful to the children particularly.

Hmmmmm, where do we start in reply to such ridiculous rubbish that steel just wrote.

Apparently, believing in the non-sexualisation of underage children in photography makes one a "fascist".

Steel, with your utterly immature post, based on ideology without thought for the innocence of children, you display such a non-grasp of the issue that it almost defies reasoned belief.

This topic has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR LEFT WING VS RIGHT WING CRAP! That is YOUR manufacture.

It's NOT a political issue. It's a "child" issue.

I raised a house full of children. I'm surrounded by grandchildren and great grandchildren aplenty. I'm not having some ideological dogmatist such as you writing your crap, without reply. The mere thought of an underage child, posing nude specifically for a man to photograph and publish, and then calling it "art", and then trying to give the "impression" that it's all ok , shows the degree of desentisation some people have reached.

You deserve scorn and mockery regarding your childish "fascist" rubbish. I was one of Bob Menzies biggest supporters back in the days when the Liberal Party was the "Liberal Party". You're so blinded by dogma that you let it interfere with your reasoning ability, by actually accusing "ME" of abusing kids. You're utterly delusional, and have probably had very little contact and loving parental interaction with children. It's all dogma, dogma dogma from you.

Pathetic.

Cut the "ideological dogma" crap out of your posts......it makes you look so old fashioned and "historical" Left and right wing dogmatists like you are such a waste of protoplasm. Australia needs forward thinkers, not people engulfed by inflexible dogma.

philips,

Thank God you are a voice of reason. It is good to know their are some others out there who will defend children instead of insisting on the right to look at naked young boys and girls. Steel and Stg are regular defenders of the porn industry and this art is no different except it is exploiting kids instead of adults. Their view that it is not child exploitation reminds me of Bill Clinton who claimed oral sex with Monica wasn't sex. It has the same logic.

LOL, runner called phillips a "voice of reason"....

A truly appropriate comment on her credibility.

So Antiseptic, I see that's your one and only post on the topic.

It seems it's a bit too hard for you to actually engage your brain and comment on whether you think it's appropriate for adult men to enjoy commercially produced photographs of naked little girls, all in the name of ummmmmmmmm........ "art" of course. Oh, and let's not forget about your "rights".

I have no problem with the depiction of naked children (or naked adults, for that matter) but then, I'm not a dirty-minded old woman...

philips, did you even read my post before typing that out? Read the first sentence two sentences of my last comment and repeat them to yourself. They are simple facts and not hard to grasp. Your statements are regurgitations of what you've read in the media and your ignorant narrow mindedness. They are a collection of pieces you throw at anything that is currently topical in the media. Simple logic and reason, even facts, are beyond your grasp.

This is why you keep ending your comments with slogans such as,

"Let kids be kids........that's not hard to understand!"

....without paying any respect or attention to the children themselves and their parents, who have all spoken in support of the work and who are happy and proud of it. You even ignore historical information.

Neither do I have a problem with the depiction of naked children or adults. Have you been "comprehending" my posts? Clearly not. Have you even bothered to read them? Probably not.

Have you read my comments regarding the circumstances where child nudity, and photography of naked children, is perfectly natural and normal? Obviously NOT!

Nudity, nudism, naked children, family photos of naked kids.......all these types of things are PERFECTLY NORMAL AND NATURAL.

The "sicko" stuff comes when "adults" seek to "sexualise" nude, underage children in commercially produced, posed photographs. It's the "soft porn" version of child pornography. It's "soft" enough (and made this way "ON PURPOSE") in order to enable it's acceptance amongst people who would gain pleasure from viewing underage, nude children, but who would otherwise reject more sexually overt photographs. It's also made "soft" enough so that it can be passed off as "legitimate art", especially to people who associate art with freedom of speech. "Most" of these art lovers would of course instantly reject the photography were it to push the boundaries more.

Therefore, the producers of this "so-called art", understand these boundaries perfectly well. Their nude, underage subjects are sexualised to only a "degree"....... just enough to create controversy, and thus FANTASTIC PUBLICITY FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHY. It's a deceitful manipulation of the innocence of childhood........for the purpose of adult gain. And these morons attempt to pass it off as "art". What crap!

The mere thought of an underage grandchild of mine posing nude for professional photography is utterly repugnant to me. But there are "some" adults who believe that freedom to do as they choose takes precedence over children being allowed to be "CHILDREN".

The answer is; whenever these phony "art" scumbags come on a forum, write to a newspaper, or discuss the issue anywhere, that people who believe children deserve the "priority" speak up and crush these lovers of nude, underage child photography.

Fascinating how both philips and her male antithesis are starting to sound just as silly as each other :)

The only thing you've crushed is your credibility, the respect you deserve in these discussions and the intelligence of those who partake in these media witch hunts, which you've freely admitted to here:

phillips>"The answer is; whenever these phony "art" scumbags come on a forum, write to a newspaper, or discuss the issue anywhere, that people who believe children deserve the "priority" speak up and crush these lovers of nude, underage child photography."

An interesting detail that reveals your bigotry and fraying sanity is your need to combine "lovers", "underage" and "child" together in the same sentence. I think you are a very confused individual with an infantile grasp of art in general and what you are talking about specifically. I think that, the mask is coming off for you and your hate is really showing here. This has nothing to do with facts or reason, but your emotional hangups.

Read those two sentences I told you about. And also know that you are attacking and abusing the models and parents. No doubt if you saw them in public you would be spitting and jeering at them. People like you are a disease.

It's fascinating how superficial your comment is CJ Morgan and what that says about you. :)

"Steel and Stg are regular defenders of the porn industry and this art is no different except it is exploiting kids instead of adults. Their view that it is not child exploitation reminds me of Bill Clinton who claimed oral sex with Monica wasn't sex. It has the same logic."

Posted by runner, Sunday, 27 July 2008 11:01:57 PM

And kiddies, Richard Head here gives us an example of slander. Why don't you make like your book burning mate Gibo and call us paedophiles to top it off.

I'm not pro naked kids. I'm anti politicians telling me what is and what isn't art.

Now let's examine the overall argument from steel:

(1) His very first post is awash with his political dogma with his anti religious, anti feminist, anti socialist, anti conservative, anti social engineering comments.......and that folks was just in "ONE" of his sentences. Yes, that's right.....ONE sentence. He is clearly a loony. That's ok, he has the right to be a nutcase. He seems anti EVERYTHING that doesn't share "his" narrow minded opinions.
Not one single word of concern about children.......only words about "his" rights.

(2) On page 1 he continues with his politically correct denunciations of feminism. You know the type..........old fashioned men like steel who feel powerless and blame those horrible, evil, nasty "feminists" for all their woes. Steel is definitely a nutcase.
Again, not one single word of concern about children......only words about "his" rights.

(3) On page 3 he tells us that the parents of nude, underage children are happy with their kids being photographed, and that the photographed kids are happy with it. He's "implying" that being "happy" with it means that it's ok. Is it possible to think of logic more skewered than that? Oh yes, he then goes on to "imply" in the same post, that underage children have the ability and right to "consent". CLEARLY, steel is incapable of logical thought process. He's so blinded by his political agenda that he raises arguments that reach the height of stupidity. He goes on to accuse people who object to nude, underage child photography of........wait for it, child abuse. I'm afraid poor old steel is off with the fairies.

(4) On page 4 steel says the anti underage, nude kids debate is really about "Islamist and Christian Extremists".........again he can't keep his politically inflexible dogma that he believes in out of the debate. His view on this subject is blinded by ideology and his weird version of political correctness. He's simply crazy.

To be continued..........

Yes, he's crazy. My wife would be really, really interested to know that I'm an Islamic extremist......especially since I've been an avowed atheist all my life.

(5) On page 4 he declares I am "heavily socialist".......he doesn't know that I have been a member of the Liberal Party almost since it's inception (yes, I am that old). My most admired Australian is the great Bob Menzies. I knew him personally and conducted some campaigns with him. Poor steel probably hasn't even heard of Bob Menzies. You see, poor old fashioned steel is so blinded by his political dogma he'd be very lucky if he gets "anything" right. Steel declares, I have "deceitful intentions driven by greed".......oh dear me, I write that I think posed nude, underage, child photography is not ok, and suddenly I'm an ISLAMIC EXTREMIST WITH DECEITFUL GREEDY INTENTIONS. Steel, you are such an idiot that it defies belief.

(6) On page 4 he says I have a "socialist view of childhood". Oh dear, he just can't keep his political "agenda" and "dogma" at bay. Gee, he sure hates those wicked socialists, not to mention those nasty conservatives he talked about earlier on. His view is totally ruled by his political dogma. He just can't leave it alone.

(7) On page 4 he continues with his political ranting. He writes "it is actually you philips who are attacking and abusing children for your private SOCIALIST or FASCIST agenda". So now I'm not just a mere "child abuser", I'm also a FASCIST or SOCIALIST. Ummmmmmmmm steel, have you ever considered getting psychiatric help? Do you see fairies flying in your local park as well?

(8) On page 6 he starts a new loony accusation: Not only am I a child abuser, I'm now a PARENT ABUSER as well, who would love to "spit" and "jeer" at them........but that's not all folks, according to our resident wacko steel.....I'm now a "disease".

To be continued..........

Gee thanks for the synopsis. Who cares?.

Ye be a tad proud me thinks. Take it on the chin. We all cop it, it's good for the soul.

.........to be continued.

Well, my post limit ran out, but I'm back.

So to sum up: Here's what the delusional steel says, in his posts on this topic, in describing people who don't share "his" opinion.......if you don't share "his" opinion you are a......... wait for it, it's looooooong; hang on, I think this needs to be shouted...................you are
A RELIGIOUS, FEMINIST, SOCIAL ENGINEERING, FASCIST, HEAVILY SOCIALIST, POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE, CHILD ABUSING, CHRISTIAN, PARENT ABUSING, MUSLIM EXTREMIST WHO'S GREEDY AND DECEITFUL.

His politicised descriptions are just sooooooooooo FUNNY!

Steel is all over the place, utterly confused, knows not of what he spews, has zero credibility on the topic and thoroughly deserves mocking.

He started the topic because he was concerned with "himself". "His" rights, "his" desire to do what "he" wants, and to look at what "he" wants to look at.

This thread is NOT about children for steel....it's about "HIM" "HIM" and "HIM", and "HIS" ideology. He's miffed that "his" rights are threatened.

"Most" people who have successfully raised children and grandchildren thoroughly understand the "INNOCENCE" of childhood, and thoroughly understand the difference between the sexualisation and non-sexualisation of underage children. Unfortunately, steel has yet to reach that level of understanding and maturity. Sad. But expected, there's a certain percentage of people in all societies who are happy to put "their" needs in front of childrens' needs.

A child's innocence deserves to be protected

erm...don't get out much, do we?

phillips, all you've done is painted a contrived description and put words into my mouth. There is no way that corresponds with what I said. I notice you never quote the passages you condemn, probably because it would make you look like an idiot.

1 You should read the sentence again :)

"....who share the ideals of authoritarianism and social engineering of the Australian citizenry"

And you think it's loony to oppose authoritarianism and social engineering? I think that describes you enough that I could simply stop here and ignore any of your other bullet points but I will skim past them anyway.

2 Uhmmm.....criticising feminism is definitely *not* politically correct. Those adjectives, "horrible", "evil" and "nasty" that you use to describe feminists are all your own words and not mine :)

3 Are you really trying to pull off a 1984-style scam? "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" I presume, your addition would be something like "happiness is sadness"? As for consent, farmers use their children for slave labour as did the Catholics on WYD. They cannot consent, if you are to be believed. What will you be saying to your fellow farmers? Nothing? The fact is, they can and so did their parents. It's a fact.

4 Both Islamists and Christians share a desire for theocracy and in particular, greater censorship. Your simple mind and short-sight again has let you down.

5 Who said the Liberal Party do not have socialists among them? Many of their policies are socialist.

6 Again, you are putting words into my mouth. If you want to know the answer see the end of this post.

7,8 So what is the problem here? If you were neither a socialist/fascist (as qualified in my first post), you would not be so rabid about "crushing" others who express their opinion. You would in fact be agreeing with me. You're abusing every child who has posed for art and denying them their humanity and choices by treating them like mindless entities incapable of exercising any judgement.

I agree with philip's opinion. I'm a parent, and I wouldn't want my nude 12 year old daughter posing nude in professional photographs. What she does when an adult is her business, but she's now a child. Whether such photography is, or isn't art, is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that the child's image is sexualised, to use philip's description. That's why they are photographed posing nude, and not photographed fully clothed while in normal childhood activities like playing or at school etc.

Like philips, I too had a great laugh at steel's posts. It's good to see someone like philips here who has such a great sense of humour, who writes so well and who has the ability to highlight the absurd when other people write absurd things, like steel has done.

Keep up the good work philips. The majority of Australians, especially parents, child carers, child workers, women and other aware people would be right behind your stand for children. Well done.

Before i go, I've just noticed the last post by steel where he says that philips must be a socialist or fascist for having a strong opinion that tries to crush steel's opinion. Steel, using the same logic that you use, you also must be a socialist or fascist because you are arguing your point and trying to crush philips, unsuccessfully by the way. Philips has never said you are not allowed to express any opinion you desire. You using the terms socialist and fascist in this context, shows you have run out of all ideas.

Steel, after reading your post here on the thread, you just call people names like Islamist extremist, fascist and a dozen other insults, because they don't have the same opinion as you. You just attempt to demonise your opponents. Philips is right, you have no credibility in relation to this subject matter.

I won't waste my time anymore on steel, I doubt he's worth it. He seems like one of those people incapable of change

samsung your comments here add nothing. they are merely desperate accusations against me which mimic philips and to which i've already answered:

Steel>"all you've done is painted a contrived description and put words into my mouth. There is no way that corresponds with what I said."

samsung>"Steel, using the same logic that you use, you also must be a socialist or fascist because you are arguing your point and trying to crush philips, unsuccessfully by the way"

Nope that's not my logic at all. It's yours. If you care to prove my last comment wrong, then do so, rather than wishing that whatever you say about me must be true merely because you are saying it.

samsung>"Steel, after reading your post here on the thread, you just call people names like Islamist extremist, fascist and a dozen other insults"

Why not quote where I call people these things? Who did I call an Islamist extremist exactly? Here's the hint: You are merely regurgitating philips contrived ridicule, a strawman so to speak. All I said was if you had bothered to look it up rather than spout nonsense about me is, "You are playing into the hands of the Islamist and Christian extremists". As you can see, that is not "calling philip" anything. in fact it implies he isn't one.

More impotantly those descriptions are classifications witha basis. I have a reason for describing the situation and those are the labels. They fit the events and protagonists accurately.

samsung>"You just attempt to demonise your opponents."

This is the most ironic and sad comment you've made yet. What exactly do you think philips did and you are doing yourself by not checking your comments against my actual words? You are demonising me, not the other way around.

samsung>"on steel, I doubt he's worth it. He seems like one of those people incapable of change"

So I must change because of your staunchly ignorant and partisan opinion? I don't think so. The only thing that will change my opinion are facts and reason none of which you remotely suggest you understand.

Forget about him samsung. He's a lost cause.

All his political rhetoric shows him for what he really is. He stands roundly condemned via his "own" words. He'll defend himself till the cows come home. He'll always turn the argument around. You know, all the usual techniques used by a defensive, forum addict. The subject matter really isn't the major concern for him. The major concern seems to be his need to **DOMINATE**, and he attempts to do this by calling people who attempt to protect children "child abusers" and other such immature names. He needs to actually grow up, and live life.

The sexualisation of nude, underage children in professional photography is something he couldn't care less about.

If you can't debate then leave. That's a good lesson. I have to say I'm excited to unearth something about Melinda tankard reist that will be very, very interesting to some of those posting in support or objeting to her views.

Unfortunately the rigid rules on commenting on articles prevents me from posting this, but it's deliciously ironic and alarming at the same time as it will expose and explain many interesting allegiances and otherwise inexplicable comments, while showing how some people really, really may have their heads in the sand on this. Can't wait...but i will have to. Put it this way, Melinda is a very deceitful individual that has hijacked and utilised many for her own agenda (which I've been constantly referring to and to which people have been inclined to feel doesn't exist or to dismiss it's importance and influence). maybe posters already know this but i did not. I will probably post it in her pin up article :)

philips: "The major concern seems to be his need to **DOMINATE**"

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

philips: "The sexualisation of nude, underage children in professional photography is something he couldn't care less about."

Don't know about Steel, but that statement would true for me. So long as any sexualisation occurring is in the eye of the beholder and not the child, I couldn't care less.

Actually, that's not true. If I knew some pervert took such pleasure from a picture of my child, I would feel very uncomfortable. Still, its unlikely I would ever find out, assuming the pervert had any social graces at all. If the entire exercise took part in the perverts mind everyone is happy I guess.

Now to I come to think of it we did show some naked pictures of our kids at one of their birthdays. They might even of got one or two hearts racing in the crowd. I can't say the idea worries me in the slightest. Maybe I am not as sensitive to the issue as I thought.

Needless to say, I am very sensitive to the idea banning the taking of those sorts of pictures, or the banning of showing them in public to whoever and whenever I wanted. It is an idea I don't like at all.

One comment for you philips. Thanks so much for standing up for common decency and for respect towards childhood.

You have thoroughly won the debate with steel. You care deeply about the innocence of children. You're a good man, a "real" man. Take care.

I appreciated reading the balanced comments of foxy, bronwyn, samsung, pelican, philips, runner and especially the great post by o sung wu. Philips of course adopted the aggressive tactics that steel uses, and in the process made steel look foolish. Good effort philips, you place the kids first. O sung wu also highlighted the juvenile comments by steel, by adopting the opposite tactic of philips. He basically ignored steel, and calmly and intelligently showed why children must be the first consideration.

I laughed at the comments by stg and steel with their Nazi Germany, Sharia, fascist, socialist comments, which suggest these two juveniles have a bit of growing up to do.

O sung wu, thanks for your post and the caring it shows for children.

philips, is that you? posting in another day old account? And you call me juvenile.

Nothing philips said was accurate:

Steel>"all you've done is painted a contrived description and put words into my mouth. There is no way that corresponds with what I said. I notice you never quote the passages you condemn, probably because it would make you look like an idiot."

So,
JW>"Nazi Germany, Sharia, .....comment"

Prove where I mentioned these because it's a lie. I do not regard lying, deceitful thieves with much regard. Substantiate your comment it shows that you are a very cowardly indvidual, whoever you are.

Ah hell.... say whatever you want... I don't much care.

Are you kidding with that comment buddy?

Here's what you need to do. Go back and read all the posts on this thread. You, or anyone else, will find comments from either you or stg, depending on the comment, that refer to Nazi Germany, fascism, socialism and sharia, and by the way a lot more of paranoiac slogans/comments that I didn't even bother to mention.

That's why I described you boys as juvenile. Heck, you can't even admit that you boys mentioned these things, and then call someone a liar, backed up by 2 final sentences of personal insults and personal abuse. And now I'm philips, according to you. Grow up. You stand condemned by your own words.

You are calling people "boys", "juvenile" and "buddy" whom you know nothing about, have never communicated with before, and whom you (just incidentally) -disagree with. Whereas there are rational reasons and good, logical basis for using the terms socialists and fascists (among others), there is little reason for a one day old accounter to leap in and suddenly start calling people names that have nothing to do with the topic. I think you need to take a look in the mirror, JW.

Oh Gawd, here we go again, poor old steel painting himself as the "VICTIM", yet again: That's a classic, recognised behaviour of internet forum trolls and abusers. They just love to "turn the argument around".

This is how it works:

They (people like steel) get aggressive and personal when attempting to debate. Steel calls people things like "fascist" and "child abuser" and "parent abuser" and "you're a disease" and "islamic extremist" and "socialist" and "greedy" and "deceitful".......the list is endless on this topic,

Then.........

Steel makes a post on this page that says that says a poster here is a liar and continues "I do not regard lying, deceitful thieves with much regard" and "you are a very cowardly individual". This of course is mere personal abuse,

Then..............

Someone replies to steel's personal insults and calls steel "buddy" and "boy" and "juvenile",

Then.........

Our poor, sensitive steel complains that he's being called those horrible names, "buddy" "boy" and "juvenile". Imagine that, someone calls him "buddy" and he complains he's being abused.

So to sum up.......

Steel paints himself as the "VICTIM" in his last post.

I tell you what folks, steel's posts are the funniest things I have read in , well....... at least 3 or 4 days. He'd keep a good psychoanalyst busy for years.

Poor, poor steel the "VICTIM". He's such a nice, sweet guy. He's always nice to people here and never uses rhetoric or name calling........and this is the way we repay him: By abusing him with terrible names like "boy" and "buddy".

Poor, poor steel......the "VICTIM".

You've just got to laugh. It's hilarious.

Obsessive, much?

The discussion has moved on. Who cares about your hurt feelings? Now be a good chap, put your sock puppets away and feel free to comment on something people actually care about.

Yes , steel needs to move on, he achieves nothing and hurts no one with his insults. He's just being laughed at now. No good comes from this sort of thing. The discussion has well and truly moved on.