but anyone can call themself an artist to legitimise their  fantasies

No they can't. Artists are not allowed to have sex with children.

I doubt Henson will walk away unscathed

True. Money can't buy this sort of publicity. He will make a fortune out of it.

but by the time most kids get to 3 or 4 a natural modesty takes over

This modesty is not natural. It is cultural.

but obviously underage, pubescent nude child photography is unacceptable

It isn't obvious to me. What matters is whether the images are sexualised, not whether the child is pubescent. Pre-pubescent children are at just as much risk from pedophiles, which is what this is about. This is not about people who feel uncomfortable with the naked human body. There is nothing fundamentally different between you insisting the law should cover up females of a certain age and a muslim forcing his wife to wear a burqua. No amount of covering up will protect women and children from perverts and telling young girls they must cover their body sends the wrong message.

Mantra:

Quote:


What of that infamous photo of a naked young pubescent Vietnamese girl, taken after a napalm attack?  Front page right across the Globe.

These images were sexualised in my view and the views of apparently 88% of the population.

This population you refer to, have they seen the images?

Think about it mantra - the guy made money by photographing naked children in extreme pain. Nudity alone does not make an image pornographic.

Australian culture is a bit puritanical with regard to nudity compared to mainland Europe and many ohter places. It is important to distinguish between such cultural norms and what truly puts children in danger. I remember when I was in Germany they had one of those teenage magazines - their equivalent to cosmopolitan, and the encouraged teenage readers to send in photos of themselves having sex. No genital were shown of course. This didn't seem to bother anyone, and I doubt that it has put their kids at risk.

Mantra obviously the people who call the government to complain are going to have an issue with it. 88% is surprisingly low - I'd expect over 99% from that source.

Sappho perhaps a gentle song might help people to understand these confusing experiences of yours....

http://www.lyrics007.com/Angels%20Lyrics/Dogs%20Are%20Talking%20Lyrics.html

Title: Angels - Dogs Are Talking lyrics

Artist: Angels

(R. Brewster-Neeson-Spencer-Eccles-Hilbun)
There comes a time in a young girl's life
when she first meets a man
there comes a time in a young girl's life
when she becomes a woman
Highway number nineteen
the moon's shining bright
she's been in my dreams
if it's ever gonna happen
it'll happen tonight
Talk to me, talk to me
tell me what you gonna do
come to me, come to me
are we gonna see it through?
so you got a reputation
well I do too!
all across the nation
there are guys hanging out to meet girls like you
The dogs are talking
Heartbreaker, heartbreaker
with a jelly roll skin
lovemaker, lovemaker
aint'cha gonna let me in?
backseat, backseat
you know ya gotta loosen up
body heat, body heat
don't stop now
don't stop...don't stop
The dogs are talking
Cool down, cool down
you don't wanna go home
turn around, turn around
we're gonna scream and moan
talk to me, talk to me
what's you number?
what's your name?
gimme more, gimme more
gotta do it again, and again, and again
The dogs are talking
Let them talk, talk!

Quote:


Yes Sappho - the experience was yours - in front of your bedroom mirror alone,  not for the rest of Australia to experience alongside you.  You didn't have to pose alone with a middle aged man while he told you to move this arm there and that leg there - now turn, twist, look up, move your knee etc. etc.  He was alone with these children as most artists are with their models.

Some interesting comments - from Clive Hamilton, Director of the Australia Institute:

Extracts

“In such a cultural environment, the naked body of a child, particularly a girl of 12 showing the first signs of sexual development, can no longer be viewed “innocently”, and cannot but be seen by everyone, other than hermits, in a sexual context”.

The photographs show the girl’s budding breasts, her hips and, in one case, a glimpse of her vagina. Their intention is not to arouse erotic feelings and they are unlikely to do so except in those already inclined to view children in that way. They are imaginative, haunting and beautiful. Although not sexual images, they can be seen as a commentary on the slow, halting and unsettling metamorphosis of child’s body into an adult one.

However, the fact that the pictures cannot be characterised as pornographic is not the end of the ethical story because the social context in which the photographs are presented changes their nature.

If we lived in a society of sophisticated people with mature sexuality, one that respected children and the integrity of their maturation process, then there could be no objection to the Henson exhibition. Alternatively, if the photographs were seen only by the intended audience and in the gallery environment, the exhibition could fulfill its purpose without controversy.

Perhaps some decades ago such a world, or at least a subset of the world, existed; but it doesn’t any more. The exhibition cannot be isolated from a society in which children are increasingly exploited for commercial reasons and used for gratification…