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.