RubySoho
Winston
It's Official: The Human Race Has Finally Lost The Plot
May 29th 2008 06:21
Even as the fallout over the Bill Henson photography exhibit rages on, society continues to reach new heights of paranoid hysteria. For anyone who is unaware Bill Henson is one of Australia's (if not the world's) most esteemed photographers. His works have been exhibited at the National Gallery of Victoria and the Guggenheim in New York. The human form is a regular feature in his body of work. The controversy over his work exploded when an art gallery in Sydney featured some of his photographs on his website to promote an upcoming exhibition. One of the models in his collection was only 13 and this drew some complaints due to the fact that she was nude. I know there is a fine line here between what is art and what is porn, furthermore, even if Henson's intentions were purely artistic it does not mean that we should not be concerned with whether a 13 year old is capable of giving informed consent as to whether or not she can be photographed in such a manner.
The exhibition was closed down, there was talk of prosecution and even now more and more art galleries across Australia are been asked to hand over pieces of Henson's work to the police. For more details on Bill Henson read Morgan's post Biil Henson art exhibit deemed child porn.
I really don't know where I stand on the Henson issue. The line is so blurred for me I find it almost impossible to choose a side to stand on. I don't think Henson is in the child pornography business and I don't think the human body is something to be ashamed of but I can understand how it may be unfair and unwise to portray such a young girl this way. What I cannot understand however, is how this has caused such a furore when fashion magazines and runway shows still get a free reign to portray girls as young as 13 in overtly sexual ways. We are exposed to these images far more than we are exposed to photographs in art galleries that are not being created to sell a product. There is a definite double standard being exhibited here and it really bothers me.
Last year, 12 year old Gabrielle Maddison was chosen as the "face" of Gold Coast Fashion Week and was photographed in a bikini. It can be argued that 12 year olds in the fashion world is far more destructive than in a controlled art studio with the supervision of parents. This is what Janice Dickinson, a former teen model has to say to the today show about Maddison “There’s lots of drugs, there’s lots of alcohol, there’s lots of photographers preying on these girls...“Thirteen is way too young.”
What I find most problematic in this scenario is that the uproar over the Henson photographs was sparked not by a concern for the welfare of the girl in his photographs (it was taken several years ago), nor even by a attempt to force society to re-examine its values ( as testified by the fact that girls of the same age are deemed old enough to model bikinis and lingerie) but over the fear that such photographs "encourage pedophilia". My initial reaction to this, and it has not wavered, is that we are entering a new age of paranoia and hysteria.
And to me this fear was confirmed when I read this news article a few days ago on news.com.au
Concern nappy (diaper) ads encourage pedophiles
May 25, 2008 02:07am
NAPPY television commercials featuring semi-naked babies have been criticised after claims they encourage pedophiles.
A parliamentary inquiry is examining whether it is appropriate to have unclothed babies in commercials after it was revealed they are the subject of regular complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB).
ASB chief executive officer Alison Abernethy said images of babies in advertisements for nappies, Pull-Ups, baby wipes and bath products has raised the ire of sections of the community.
"The nappy advertisements top the complaints in the category about sexualisation of children," she said. "Members of the community are concerned that those images will encourage pedophiles."
While the ASB dismissed the complaints, stressing the importance of giving advertisers the right to promote their products, the parliamentary inquiry into sexualisation of children is examining whether commercials featuring semi-naked babies are appropriate.
Inquiry chairwoman Senator Anne McEwen said recommendations in the committee's report, to be released next month, could look at restricting images of nude babies in adverts.
"There may or may not be a recommendation along the lines of whether the issue of using images of babies needs to be addressed," she said.
"The ASB sets its criteria and that's what they benchmark things against. If the feeling is that the ASB criteria are inadequate, it's something that needs to be looked at."
Ms McEwen said the complaints were reasonable and would be examined, although they were not the main focus of the inquiry, which dealt with sexualisation of older children, not toddlers.
"People are entitled to complain about what they see as inappropriate but, on the other hand, people are also entitled to have reasonably free access to the media," she said. "It could be in the report, but we didn't go into it in-depth about images that pedophiles may be able to use for their own gratification."
An advertisement for Huggies Pull-Ups, which features a toddler heading towards the toilet, was the subject of several complaints two years ago, Ms Abernethy said.
One complainant said: "In the ad, it shows a mother taking her toddler to the toilet and pulling off his underwear. The camera moves away when the underwear is millimetres away from showing the boy's private parts.
"I am disturbed when I think of the thrill a pedophile would get from this image," the complainant added.
It is impossible for me to find the words to convey to you how I feel when I read that article. My fellow Australians, next time we laugh at the crazy Americans who give guns away with their cars or think calling someone "sweetie" is the epitome of sexism or allegedly fire a teacher for performing "wizardry" just repeat these words to yourself: our parliament has ordered an inquiry into whether or not nappy ads featuring naked babies encourage pedophiles. Now I know it says that toddlers would not be the focus of the inquiry BUT credence is still being given to these ridiculous complaints by calling them "reasonable".
And that's not all. Photo-sharing website photobucket recently announced it would impose a ban on naked and semi-naked babies as it violated the websites "no-nudity" policy.
Babies. We are talking about babies here. Thankfully, sanity prevailed and enough people told photobucket they were being absolute lunatics that they reversed their decision. Jessica Thornton who uses photobucket to advertise her range of cloth nappies had this to say to cnet.com.au
"It's just horrible being made to feel like you've done something shameful when we're in the cloth diapering business".
Amen to that. There is nothing shameful about a baby in nappies. I really feel we are starting to lose our grip on this issue. Fear of pedophiles should not be governing the way in which we relate to our children. In an effort to protect our children we are now projecting adult fears and adult attitudes onto them and their undeveloped minds are just not capable of handling it. Read Winston's article on this issue here: Randy Castro- 1st grader, lego builder...sex offender???
Babies and young children do not know they are naked. They do not know that naked bodies can be sexual. They don't even know what sex is. It seems that in an overly concerted effort to protect our children we may end up stifling them and causing them to be ashamed of their own bodies. They have a whole adult lifetime to be hung up over sex and their bodies to look forward to. Why on earth worry them about it when they are still kids? This is not progress.
Furthermore it is positively insane that adults are to be made to feel ashamed just by posting a photo of a semi-naked baby on the internet in order to sell nappies. And I will not be made to feel ashamed when I blow a raspberry on my little nephew's belly. Or when I kiss the rolls of fat on his legs or when I squeeze his chubby little backside. He is a baby for crying out loud. There is nothing sexual about his body. What is wrong with us that we can no longer look at the body of a toddler and see it just for what it is? Why is sex always at the forefront of our minds? Why can't we just enjoy physical intimacy with our children without the threat of being deemed pedophiles?
And why oh why do we have to let fear govern our lives?
And just to annoy all you paranoid freaks out there who here is another photo of a baby in nappies.
Ruby.
The exhibition was closed down, there was talk of prosecution and even now more and more art galleries across Australia are been asked to hand over pieces of Henson's work to the police. For more details on Bill Henson read Morgan's post Biil Henson art exhibit deemed child porn.
I really don't know where I stand on the Henson issue. The line is so blurred for me I find it almost impossible to choose a side to stand on. I don't think Henson is in the child pornography business and I don't think the human body is something to be ashamed of but I can understand how it may be unfair and unwise to portray such a young girl this way. What I cannot understand however, is how this has caused such a furore when fashion magazines and runway shows still get a free reign to portray girls as young as 13 in overtly sexual ways. We are exposed to these images far more than we are exposed to photographs in art galleries that are not being created to sell a product. There is a definite double standard being exhibited here and it really bothers me.
Last year, 12 year old Gabrielle Maddison was chosen as the "face" of Gold Coast Fashion Week and was photographed in a bikini. It can be argued that 12 year olds in the fashion world is far more destructive than in a controlled art studio with the supervision of parents. This is what Janice Dickinson, a former teen model has to say to the today show about Maddison “There’s lots of drugs, there’s lots of alcohol, there’s lots of photographers preying on these girls...“Thirteen is way too young.”
What I find most problematic in this scenario is that the uproar over the Henson photographs was sparked not by a concern for the welfare of the girl in his photographs (it was taken several years ago), nor even by a attempt to force society to re-examine its values ( as testified by the fact that girls of the same age are deemed old enough to model bikinis and lingerie) but over the fear that such photographs "encourage pedophilia". My initial reaction to this, and it has not wavered, is that we are entering a new age of paranoia and hysteria.
And to me this fear was confirmed when I read this news article a few days ago on news.com.au
Concern nappy (diaper) ads encourage pedophiles
May 25, 2008 02:07am
NAPPY television commercials featuring semi-naked babies have been criticised after claims they encourage pedophiles.
A parliamentary inquiry is examining whether it is appropriate to have unclothed babies in commercials after it was revealed they are the subject of regular complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB).
ASB chief executive officer Alison Abernethy said images of babies in advertisements for nappies, Pull-Ups, baby wipes and bath products has raised the ire of sections of the community.
"The nappy advertisements top the complaints in the category about sexualisation of children," she said. "Members of the community are concerned that those images will encourage pedophiles."
While the ASB dismissed the complaints, stressing the importance of giving advertisers the right to promote their products, the parliamentary inquiry into sexualisation of children is examining whether commercials featuring semi-naked babies are appropriate.
Inquiry chairwoman Senator Anne McEwen said recommendations in the committee's report, to be released next month, could look at restricting images of nude babies in adverts.
"There may or may not be a recommendation along the lines of whether the issue of using images of babies needs to be addressed," she said.
"The ASB sets its criteria and that's what they benchmark things against. If the feeling is that the ASB criteria are inadequate, it's something that needs to be looked at."
Ms McEwen said the complaints were reasonable and would be examined, although they were not the main focus of the inquiry, which dealt with sexualisation of older children, not toddlers.
"People are entitled to complain about what they see as inappropriate but, on the other hand, people are also entitled to have reasonably free access to the media," she said. "It could be in the report, but we didn't go into it in-depth about images that pedophiles may be able to use for their own gratification."
An advertisement for Huggies Pull-Ups, which features a toddler heading towards the toilet, was the subject of several complaints two years ago, Ms Abernethy said.
One complainant said: "In the ad, it shows a mother taking her toddler to the toilet and pulling off his underwear. The camera moves away when the underwear is millimetres away from showing the boy's private parts.
"I am disturbed when I think of the thrill a pedophile would get from this image," the complainant added.
It is impossible for me to find the words to convey to you how I feel when I read that article. My fellow Australians, next time we laugh at the crazy Americans who give guns away with their cars or think calling someone "sweetie" is the epitome of sexism or allegedly fire a teacher for performing "wizardry" just repeat these words to yourself: our parliament has ordered an inquiry into whether or not nappy ads featuring naked babies encourage pedophiles. Now I know it says that toddlers would not be the focus of the inquiry BUT credence is still being given to these ridiculous complaints by calling them "reasonable".
this is NOT porn! photo credit:gizmodo.com
And that's not all. Photo-sharing website photobucket recently announced it would impose a ban on naked and semi-naked babies as it violated the websites "no-nudity" policy.
Babies. We are talking about babies here. Thankfully, sanity prevailed and enough people told photobucket they were being absolute lunatics that they reversed their decision. Jessica Thornton who uses photobucket to advertise her range of cloth nappies had this to say to cnet.com.au
"It's just horrible being made to feel like you've done something shameful when we're in the cloth diapering business".
Amen to that. There is nothing shameful about a baby in nappies. I really feel we are starting to lose our grip on this issue. Fear of pedophiles should not be governing the way in which we relate to our children. In an effort to protect our children we are now projecting adult fears and adult attitudes onto them and their undeveloped minds are just not capable of handling it. Read Winston's article on this issue here: Randy Castro- 1st grader, lego builder...sex offender???
Babies and young children do not know they are naked. They do not know that naked bodies can be sexual. They don't even know what sex is. It seems that in an overly concerted effort to protect our children we may end up stifling them and causing them to be ashamed of their own bodies. They have a whole adult lifetime to be hung up over sex and their bodies to look forward to. Why on earth worry them about it when they are still kids? This is not progress.
Furthermore it is positively insane that adults are to be made to feel ashamed just by posting a photo of a semi-naked baby on the internet in order to sell nappies. And I will not be made to feel ashamed when I blow a raspberry on my little nephew's belly. Or when I kiss the rolls of fat on his legs or when I squeeze his chubby little backside. He is a baby for crying out loud. There is nothing sexual about his body. What is wrong with us that we can no longer look at the body of a toddler and see it just for what it is? Why is sex always at the forefront of our minds? Why can't we just enjoy physical intimacy with our children without the threat of being deemed pedophiles?
And why oh why do we have to let fear govern our lives?
And just to annoy all you paranoid freaks out there who here is another photo of a baby in nappies.
photo credit: Good Mama Diapers
Ruby.
| 121 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
I totally agree with your conclusions on the whole semi-naked baby diaper fiasco.
I also agree that the sexualisation of young children and teenagers should be stopped.
However, there is something genuinly creepy about a grown man - despite his reputation as a photographer - taking pictures of 12/13 year old girls, who have been told to strip down for his artistic vision.
Furthermore, it begs the question: just what responsibility should an artist adhere to? Where is the line drawn when in comes to artistic expression? Is it anything goes? In that case, should an artist allow his racist, sexist, homophobic, or anti-religious views to be framed and hung up on the walls of our nations art galleries?
These are questions which must be addressed not only by the average punter and the Government, but also by the artistic community.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i dont think all nudity is sexual and there are toddlers running around everywhere "topless" and "semi-naked", esp in Australia with the warm climate . . . can we really not depict reality any more?
perhaps when we really need is criminal convictions for the pedophiles who are actually physically abusing children, more serious penalties, more open communications with kids, less opportunities for people involved in child care to abuse their power
unfortunately i think there are probably more dads, step-dads, uncles, teachers, scout-leaders and priests out there abusing kids than psychos with a van and a bag of lollies abducting kids off the street
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
What is wrong with us that we can no longer look at the body of a toddler and see it just for what it is?
But everyone has their own interpretation. One person's asexual being is another's hyper-sexualised being.
I'm not saying that this paranoia is justified. Quite the opposite - I think it's going way too far.
But keep in mind that not everyone will see things the way you do. In fact, no one but you can see things the way you do. And even if another person finds such youngsters non-sexual, then they'll have a different way of thinking about it.
But this could be a debate for another time.
I like this quote from Oscar Wilde: It is because humanity has never known where it was going that it has been able to find it's way.
Comment by Anonymous
censorship is the only sin, if you are shocked by a naked girl you should re-arrange the way you view reality.
if you see the war on CNN and dont say shit, but when you see someone´s body (just what we are born with) and say "mmm, this might be wrong" then you are an imbecil.
Get a fucking brain people, you are all being a bunch of retrograted fascists without even knowin it so.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Firstly, who said I was shocked by the image of a naked girl? My reservations have to do with the fact that a 13 year old may not be mature enough to give informed consent. My doubts have to do with concern for the children used in these images, not because I am offended by the human form. Think about it, a pubescent girl is stripping naked before a middle aged man. Is she emotionally capable of handling it?
Secondly, you are being presumptuous to assume that I am not offended by violent images on television, but that is rather a different issue isn't it? How are you to know what I do and do not say on various issues?
Thirdly, why are you swearing at me?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
it was characterised by the heated language, swearing, lack of reason, irrelevant statements, and clearly not having really read the article or following comments
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Matt, thanks for dropping by, I do agree with you. I wish we lived in a world where we were not conditioned to be self-conscious about our bodies but I remember as a 13 year old I wouldn't even undress in front of my own mother. But then I am not the girl in the photos so who's to say what she felt? Like I said the jury is still out for me, I absolutely do not think Henson should be charged. That would be a travesty. Besides which I stand by my statement- i think advertising that uses young bodies to actually sell products as opposed to depicting the human form simply to celebrate its beauty is far more damaging to society and to the minds of young girls everywhere.
Winston, the whole world's gone loony bins.
Norm, you and me both.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And I know not everyone sees things the way I do but if the human race is getting to the point that we are going to force toddlers to cover themselves up and not be free in their own innocent little bodies then we are just going backwards.
What's next, are we just going to lock our children away until they turn 18, just in case someone sees them and gets dirty thoughts?
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
A personal note...I remember my wife sending pictures via email of our little boy in his first bath. I told her it wouldn't be a good idea to do it again. She thought I was being paranoid and couldn't believe that anyone would find it offensive or take it the wrong way. She is from Europe. After some time here, she now understands.
Comment by Thoraiya Dyer
Demented World
I think Morgan is right about imposing heavier penalties on actual paedophiles, rather than assuming we all have paedophilic tendancies and need to be "protected" from images of naked children.
That's how women in Saudi Arabia ended up completely covered in black - they decided the best way to stop rapists was to hide the women away, instead of castrating the rapists.
As for the naked babies concept...*sigh*
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
It's amply evident punishment does not sway a pedophile, imposing heavier penalties on them isn't going to change anything.
Comment by Thoraiya Dyer
Demented World
In the veterinary world, they use a testosterone-inhibiting drug called Tardak to give the temporary effect of castration in police and army dogs.
*grins*
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
You miss my point, punishments will not detract them, they may make you feel better but on the whole pedophiles will not stop being pedophiles until they are caught.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Thanks Michelle Malkin. You have just served to make the human race that little bit dumber.
Hi Thoraiya, great analogy with Saudi Arabia and spot on. Such attitudes put the onus on the wrong party.
Hi Ahmed, I know what your position is and as I stated above I respect both sides of the debate. I can see why both feel the way they do.
I'll stay out of the whole punishments for pedophiles debate going on there...
Comment by notes-from-the-other-side
I speek my mind the way I want to.
Draw the line then, tell me the age when a girl starts to suffer damage for the fact of showing herself naked or maybe tell me at what age she starts to be responsible for her acts.
This is so nymious and inoffensive (not even needing to start comparing with the real shocking things that happen around the world)
GET A FUCKIN POINT OF VIEW
TIMID LAME BALL SUCKING POLITICALLY CORRECTS IMBECILS: SUCK MY FREEDOM LOVING COCK.
enough swearing?
punks
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
so it is with the utmost sincerity and cheerfulness that i heartily invite you to go fuck yourself.
Comment by Joseph R. Terrazzino
Koovies
First off, Ruby, you are still making up your mind because you obviously have a mind. The issue is more complex than some trolls want to believe.
Some people will get turned on by a toaster, while most only want to put bread inside its warm slots.
Fetishes abound. Are we all prisoners to some peoples' fetishes? To the mere possibility that an image or painting or picture might spawn a fetish?
Censorship is wrong. Most people can judge whether an image is sexually suggestive without conferring with a government panel or a flock of pastors or a wizard or what have you. It's obvious.
A young girl sticking her rump out of lingerie is sexual. A young girl frolicking on the beach with a ball is not.
A baby . . . well, dude, if you can even THINK about a baby sexually, I say you need to visit the six-foot-under-hotel.
"I heartily invite you to go fuck yourself"--Ruby
Priceless. And oddly sexy.
Oops! Censor that!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Oh and I don't censor anything around these here parts.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
I say this without having seen this photographer's work, except for one ABC doco, shown this week, which had the head of the NSW Gallery, Edmund Capon, defending him. However, Capon did qualify his defense by saying that some of his work did test boundaries. The few images shown did not appear pornographic in the least, but hauntingly dark and brooding works, that reminded one of old master's grouping of figures, and some of cinema noir.
The definition, of what constitutes pornography, I believe is at the heart of this matter.
Also, the law of no child exploitation, should be applied across the board, including the fashion industry. But how far is too far? Who decides what is decent and what is not?
While actually not knowing of Henson's work prior to this police raid and media coverage, I would have presumed someone of his international stature would have arranged the photography carefully, and with full parental consent and presence during photography, otherwise he would be well open to suspicion and innuendo, and possibly prosecution.
My question is, why would someone in his position jeopardise his work and his reputation, by creating child pornography and then, on top of that, display it publically? Only if he was suffering a brain tumour methinks!
It is galling to see the rise of censorship of the arts yet again.
That said, it is obvious no right thinking person wants to see children debased, in any way or form. However, as you correctly point out, an unreasonable climate of fear has been created in society.If we are to totally ban the naked form, particularly of a person under the age of adulthood, then we need to remove most of the old masters' artworks from all the galleries!!!
And what now, of all the art books?
Well, off all these moral campaigners need to go, with torches blazing, to the public libraries, NSW Art Gallery, the National Art Gallery Canberra, the National Gallery of Victoria, to name but a few, for there are a lot of cheeky naked Cherubim, and even some Seraphim, floating through the air of old master's paintings that might have escaped their bizarre and twisted eyes!
It is times like these, that I start to wonder what is happening in the world that is being purposely ignored?
Oh, that's right, children being blown to pieces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many African countries. Iraqi and Afghani children are being born with birth defects because of the thousands of tons of depleted uranium that the USA, Britain and Allies (Aussies too?) dropped on their countries over the last decade! I do not hear many of the same voices yelling objections about that at the moment!
As for the babies in diapers, for god sake!
I think the people who objected to babies in diapers need to see a psychiatrist immediately, they are self-projecting an extremely worrisome psychopathology that needs treatment, forthwith!
cheers
fog
Comment by Joseph R. Terrazzino
Koovies
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Drinking Bundaberg Rum is cool.
At the same time, I think binge drinking is a problem.
It's still cool to drink Bundy though.
The bear is so cool.