Very late on this - 'cos I'm posting from beautiful Brunswick Heads where I'm esconced in my favourite holiday hideaway with my kids, and the mad Frenchman that runs the place has finally got the wireless broadband working...

Anyway, it's nice to be able to agree with some people with whom I've had some differences. I have absolutely no sympathy for Polanski, but my recollection of Hollingsworth's 'sin' was that it was that he dismissed the complaint in question as not constituting 'sex abuse' when questioned about it on 'Australian Story', rather than covering any crime up per se.

As for Henson, I think it's quite wrong to lump him in with paedophiles and sex abusers. As I stated here at the time, Henson broke no laws and (as Ludwig says) only offended the morality of a small but vocal minority. Henson's art is only pornographic in the eye of the beholder.

Anyway, back to my CC & dry and the balmy ocean breeze...

Shadow Minister

<< However, the attempt to lump Henson's art with this offense is pure rubbish. One is paedophilia, the other prudity. >>

In your eyes maybe. In mine, and many others, not so at all.

Both these men are guilty of preying on and deliberately exploiting the emerging sexuality of very young girls. Both used their status and power differential to exact a price from these girls, who with a little more maturity would most likely never have agreed to being used in the manner in which they were.

There are degrees of difference, I agree, but there are strong similarities too.

My criticism of Henson BTW has nothing whatever to do with prudery. It's the exploitation that I object to.

CJ

You and I don't disagree very often, but yes we do on Henson. I'll leave you in peace though to enjoy the ocean breezes and your CC and dry. I'll direct my piece to poor old Shadow Minister instead. But I know you'll read it just the same. :)

What of Germaine Greer's The Boy? By Bronwyn's definition Greer would be streets ahead of Henson in the paedophile stakes, putting forward photos of boys for old feminists to ogle and imagine the "semen that runs like tap water". Another charming Greer quote, "A woman of taste is a pederast — boys rather than men.". Here is the typical feminist reaction that appeared overnight celebrating Greer's self-avowed pedarism:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2004/01/the_boy

Henson and the drooling Greer (who invited others like her to do the same) are as different as chalk and cheese. That is why Henson's art did not invite articles similar to those encouraged by the dipsy media-tart Germaine Greer. Henson's artistic intent was to reflect life, beautifully and poignantly, not to provide soft porn to grab a headline and revive long-lost notoriety. Greer only ever had one book in her and I always wonder just how much of that creative effort she owed to others around her.

Why target Henson when Greer fits the bill so neatly?

Bronwyn,

The scale to which the Australian public has over reacted to the "threat" of paedophiles was brought home to me when I wanted to take photos of my son and daughter playing on the beach, and found myself threatened by a robust matron who would not back off even when I explained that they were my children.

Life is full of risks, and we all take care to reduce them to acceptable levels, but there is a limit at which the cost and restrictions of the precautions outweigh the benefits to our well being.

I am prepared to wear seat belts, avoid alcohol, and drive within the speed limits. I would be safer if I wore a crash helmet and limited my speed to 40kmph at all times, but the cost in discomfort and time make this unacceptable to me.

Like wise the Henson photos of pubescent girls which don't show any naughty bits, but could be interpreted by a small portion of the population as mildly erotic.

What is the next step? Do we put fig leaves on the statue of David or a shroud on the Venus de Milo?

When do we stand back and realise that a small band of vocal puritans are setting the agenda, and shackling our thoughts. (or as per Monty Python: "Stop! This is getting too silly")

Bronwyn, you may mean well, but your (and others) censorial intentions are as big a threat to my children's future as the paedophiles.

Cornflower

<< Why target Henson when Greer fits the bill so neatly? >>

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm certainly not 'targeting' Henson. I only referred to him because his name had already beeen mentioned here and because I do see parallels between him and Polanski.

Regarding Greer. Firstly, she is no 'dipsy' and wanting to get her message out on occasions, and knowing exactly how to do it, doesn't necessarily qualify her for the description of 'media-tart' either. I don't agree with all she says, but on balance tend to feel she has something worthwhile to contribute more often than not. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with a lot of what she says in 'The Boy', but as always with her I know it would contain real food for thought.

This passage from the article you provided is a good example of how Greer makes links others often don't and is particularly pertinent to the discussion here. It might go some way towards explaining why the young girls in question allowed themselves to be manipulated and exploited by older men.

<< There are implications for young girls when society dismisses boys as not worth looking at. Mothers and fathers send out the message that boys are awkward, ungainly and silly. They give the impression that boys have nothing to offer but are suddenly horrified when their daughters go out with older men. If they don’t like it when this happens, why aren’t they encouraging heterosexual girls to discover their sexuality with boys their own age? Or does society, for all its moral outrage, actually secretly believe it is only right and proper for a girl to be sexually indoctrinated by someone older and ‘wiser’ rather than the peer who is her true equal? >>

Greer's use of text, as opposed to Henson's reliance on a visual statement, means she's able to make a much more complex and nuanced case. Accusing her of 'pedarism', while maybe understandable, does an injustice to all the other facets of her argument, which as always contribute significantly and positively to public debate.

Shadow Minister

I totally agree with you about the hysteria surrounding the whole issue of paedophiles and have great sympathy for you regarding the photo incident. I hope you held your ground and took your photos. :)

I'm not puritanical and I'm not even advocating banning Henson's work. My argument is and always has been that he is wrong to exploit young girls as he does and should desist from further doing so.

I don't see any real public benefit in his work, and the little there might be certainly doesn't outweigh in my mind the damage done by condoning these exploitational type of relationships between older men and very young girls, whose limited life experience doesn't qualify them to understand and recognize when they're being manipulated and used.

I made this very clear in my last post and if you can't see the subtle yet very real difference between my position and that of the puritanical ranters then there's no point in me continuing further dialogue with you.