Leaving aside the gauche way in which the magazine sought to defuse the earlier furore about Bill Henson, parents who defend their decisions to allow the publication of these types of shots do not make sense to me. Even more so be getting their daughter to also defend it in public.
This is exploitation of innocence. Fine in a family context. Wrong in the public domain. Do we not on the one hand condemn child paedophilia, with huge international resources going into tracking down these people. We cannot on the other hand defend this kind of stuff.
Our kids got hold of our film camera and took a series of detailed shots of their goolies. I was shocked when I picked up the film from the chemist and saw the shots. I was sure I had the wrong set. In the back of my mind, I wondered if we would be dobbed in. It was exactly the sort of thing that you would get into trouble for if it was on your computer.
Because it was our kids and they will never see the light outside one of our large cartons of photographs I feel comfortable remembering their pride as they explained how they set up the shots.
Public sexualisation of children is wrong. They are too young to make these kinds of decisions in my mind. It is bad enough looking at the Target catalog some weeks. All the highbrow references to art are bunk in my mind.
Rob from the very excellent Broadsheet Rag highlights another case for parent euthanasia.
11 comments:
Couldn't agree more. But I think there are two sides to this: keeping kids from being exploited is one (and a very important one), but keeping kids from being exposed to sexual/pornographic content is another, and that is getting increasingly difficult. Have you noticed that even on Radio National there are programs featuring pole dancing, toyboys or the story of a teacher who becomes the town's only prostitute? Plus, the news programs just seem to relish the stuff and "report" on all sex offenses etc in far too much detail. Great stuff for kids to listen to. It means I can't even listen to the ABC during the day any more.
Very good point.
I have noticed that generally the ABC has taken on a more fluffy tone in what they report and how they report it.
The human interest ala Current Affairs for radio have no place in their day time output.
The "it's art and paedophiles won't look at it" line that gets trotted out by these "art experts" is a load of bullshyte.
Kids are kids for a very short time and this sexualisation of them is just plain wrong, sick and perverted.
Did you see the interview with the child Colin? She was well versed in what to say when asked about the shoot. Not in the sense of a typical 11 year old, noting the photos were taken when she was 6. As parents, it is easy to see, kids of that age are not in a position to make those kind of decisions. Perverts utopia.
Fuss about nothing - photos like that only sexualise children in the minds of those who sexualise children.
I look at it and vaguely wonder what adult post it reminds me off and wonder quite why anyone would want to create such an image using a child rather than an adult.
There are plenty of pictures out there that sexualise children rather more obviously than that one. The one done by Anne Lebowitz of Miley Cyrus comes to mind - now that was full on child porn in my view.
Absolutely agree with you. Having had many years working against pedophilia, I see how they think. They would see her beautiful doe eyes as taunting and flirting, not innocent, but begging for it. I have no doubt they would be discussing it on their pervert forums as a victory in their constant desire to convert us 'abnormal' thinkers.
The parents need to see what the pedo's will do with that photo, perhaps THEN they will protect their daughters' image and her dignity as a young kid.
The child is not of an age of consent, both to sexualized comments, sexualized images and the very definition of sexualisation.
Disgusting.
ah so ms smack is of the penalise everyone because of a few perverts mentality - the type of person who has given rise to a society where a lost child cannot approach and adult for help because the adult will walk away because of the risk of some nutty campaigner seeing every contact with a child as being sexual.
Nah, Baht At, I don't agree with that, but I do believe a naked child, is different to a child approaching an adult for help on the street.
Each to their own though.
most people don't see pictures of children naked or otherwise as in a sexual context, those who do are a bit odd at the very least.
In this particular case it isn't each to their own those who look at a child and think of sex should be beaten to death with blunt objects.
Blunter the better.
A woman's heart should be so hidden in God that a man has to seek Him just to find her.
Post a Comment