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.