Friday, May 23, 2008

Not safe for work/home/life itself!

Hoorah for our heroic police force and national press, who have spent the last 24 hours protecting us from lefty pervert Bill Henson. Henson is at the center of a whole lot of uproar among those with proper morals for his graphic depictions of half-naked adolescent forms. Which pretty much means he let the terrorists win. But Bill Henson is just the tip of the sick, twisted iceberg. Here's some other things that need to be taken away, for the benefit of the children.

Blind Faith
Long before Eric Clapton started exploiting his audiences with overpriced arena shows and boring babyboomer music, he was exploiting pre-teen girls with his circle-jerk of perversion Blind Faith. A "supergroup" featuring members of Cream and Traffic, their (thankfully) only album featured an eleven-year-old topless girl on the cover. The cover's photographer, Bob Seidermann, described his intention as to show "the beginning of the transition from girl to woman... that temporal point, that singular flare of radiant innocence". Which is basically a self-indulgent way of saying "i wish they'd left that hole in the fence behind the schoolyard"

Miley Cyrus

A hero to preteen girls around the world, the daughter of Billy Ray "Achey Breaky Heart" Cyrus recently expressed her deep embarrassment about having her bare back exposed for the world to see in a photo shoot by Vanity Fair's Annie Leibovitz (see, women can be perverted too!). This apology came after an uproar from the mainstream media, who are at the forefront of the fight against the sexualisation of children - which is why they only plastered the picture across every news outlet in the western world because they knew that parents had to be warned about who their child's hero really is.

Little Boy Fountains

I heard that R. Kelly has a bunch of these installed at his mansion. 'Nuff said.


Hannah said...


Cinnamon Girl said... i changed my mind a bit. I do think there is something wrong about taking photos of naked children like that. Definately.
But if Bill took photos of a mother and her child naked i don't think people would be so shocked. So when i posted before (and then deleted) that "photos of naked children is not art and never will be" that is very very true, up to a certain extent. People have never been offended by photos of naked children in indigenous communities or one of the most famous photos in the world of that young Vietnamese girl who had been running down the street with burned skin after napalm tore away the clothes on her back...that photo has been viewed as art but I guess with different connotations, hence the symbolism of the vietnam war and the civilians caught up in it.
But because his subjects are sole children in their pre-pubescent stages it does make me put on warning bells in my head thinking that he very much could be a pervert.

Adam said...

I think it says a lot about our society that nudity is immediately tied to sexuality, and that depictions of nudity are automatically decried as "porn".

I think Henson's portraits are completely valid works of art - To find them titillating would require the same inner distortions of sexuality that allow people to find things such as children's clothing catalogs and bathing children arousing. His portraits to me are heartbreaking and jarring, the ones that I have seen really capture the awkwardness and uncertainty of an age in which one is stuck inside a no-man's land between childhood and adulthood. I think it's going too far when people suggest that the pictures do not carry any sexual connotation at all - the point is to explore the notions of adolescence, in all its complexity. And i'm pretty sure that sexuality is a problematic part of adolescence for everyone.

To me it's absolutely laughable to suggest that the point of the artworks is to eroticise the subjects though, and given Henson's reputation i think it's also ridiculous to say that he's exploitative. His artworks explore parts of life that are often challenging, but also are experienced by every single person, and the fact that this controversy (over something that he's been doing for years) has created such a huge amount of discourse about the nature of the age, and what is right and wrong, is kind of proof that his explorations are both challenging, but also universal and important.

Besides, the nude form, even the adolescent nude form, has been with art for the entirety of its history.

thus concludes my long 4am ramble, that is probably full of contradiction and sweeping statements.

Cinnamon Girl said...

So for the last few days I've been talking to people about this and just finished having a conversation with my mum about it. You pretty much said what I said to my mum..which is: does every photo of a naked person depict porn? Obviously not.
Oh and I don't think that Henson is a pervert. See, i didn't know much about the situation before but to find out he's being doing this art for quite a few years and thinking about it I have realised that people are blowing it totally out of proportion. I saw one of his photos from 20 years ago of a young girl where Henson used amazing lighting effects and tones, it was clearly art.

Although our society has put connotations on the naked human body as something sexual, Henson's photos (that I have seen) are made to symbolise the transition from differing stages in our lives, and yes some are growing into sexual stages but people need to realise the intention of the photo. A photo of a grown naked woman who is posing provocatively at a camera can be very much labelled as "porn"..but when it comes to photos of these children who show totally different emotions where the intention is far from provocative...I think people can figure that out for themselves.

Now adam when you read my last comment and then this one you will see that i have been contradictory and made sweeping statements and its 1:30pm! The reason: HINDSIGHT and further understanding. It's easy to label people initially..but then to view something as art brings on a totally different perspective. It's just sad that the perverted and twisted people in our society have set the standards of what is acceptable and what is not, setting people into a frantic frenzy because they think art like this is condoning or encouraging eroticism relating to children.

Anonymous said...

ok first of all... i agree with you partly.. becouse.. yes people takeing photos of nude kids is wrong.. But.. at the same time it all depends on how you look at it and what is going on in the photo, like is the kid swimming?? picking flowers in a fild?? or is it really porn?? you could very well say the same thing about nude photos of adults.. and if you are one of the bible kind of people... well then i feel truly sorry for you.. even in the bible it tells you god made us all nude. so that tells me you like so many other people in the world you do not see the beauty that god has made.. and you must hate the way you look.. i am sorry maybe one day you will open your eyes and see what is porn and what is beauty.. yes there is a thin line on what is porn and what is not... but i will also say this if some adult do use a kid for porn and it is clear that it is porn what he or she is doing then yes throw the book at the sicko...

Anonymous said...

If you think kids being naked is perverted, YOU have the perverted mind.

And if you think kids being photographed naked is wrong, but it's fine if they are in exactly the same position clothed, then again, you have the perverted mind.

We are SUPPOSED to be naked and it's people like you who help to give kids self esteem problems.

So before you lump OTHER PEOPLE in with child molesters, perhaps you should take a good long look in the mirror.

Anonymous said...

I don't know art, but i know what i like. and i like these photos. there are some sexy young girls out there, and i would like nothing better than to make love to them all.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I am an adult who is sexually attracted to young girls, usually in the age range from 10 to 13. I can get excited over a girl in an image wearing a down coat, a bikini, a dress, just about anything. I've looked at the Henson images and find that they are the antithesis of sexual. There's nothing there to fantasize about at all. Just naked kids.

I guess I really don't understand our society. Take a look at There are hundreds of images of preteen girls naked on there. Family pics of little girls who went swimming with their top off or taking a bath or whatever. Nothing sexual, just kids having fun. There are also hundreds or even thousands of images of adults in various nude poses, some of which are absolutely porn. But I don't believe there's a single image of girls between the age of maybe 12 to 18 topless on there. Why is it ok to show photos of preteens and adults but not the teen ages? Seems to me we are teaching it's ok to be naked as a child and naked as an adult but somehow it's dirty to be naked as a teen.

Like it or not, our teens and tweens are sexual people. These feelings come to life in them and unless they have some way to understand the feelings, they'll figure it out for themselves. I've posed as a teen on a social network site and talked with hundreds of 13 and 14 year old girls and without a doubt, if the conversation turned sexual, it was the girls who turned it that way. Time after time, I've had to tell the girls, "whoa, we're not talking sexual here." And without exception, they all move on to someone else who WILL talk sexual with them. So, who's the pervert?

But back to Henson's images: Definitely ART, not porn. There are no gratuitous crotch shots, no sexual images, nothing. Just because a young teen girl is naked does not mean the image is sexual. In My Humble Opinion

Anonymous said...

Una cosa hipocresia por donde se le mire... no es que concuerde en colgar fotos de menores desnudos.

Pero si es condenable que sea todo condenable... niños desnudos con sus genitales en primer plano aparecen por doquier y nadie se escandaliza, ni cierra esos sitios ni meten presos por pedofilio a los que sacan esa foto.

En dailymotion exibe videos de mujeres desnuda adelante de niños o pre adolecentes o mujeres HACIENDO QUE SE MASTURBAN adelante de ellos( no son "actores" de 18 que aparentan ser menores... simplemente son menores... o la ya conocida pelicula de Xuxa "Extraño amor" tubo sexo simulado con un niño ( esa pelicula no fue clandestina... no fue vendida en el mercado negro) fue exibida en el cine comercial.

Eso tambien es pedofilia señores y señoras.

Claro me estoy dando cuenta de algo.

El varon cuando es niño es legal verlo desnudo... ya mayor es escandaloso.

Con la mujer pasa la revez ... es legal publicar fotos de mujeres desnuda... ya fotos de niñas es criminal.

Eso es hipocresia ... se tendría que prohibir las fotos y peliculas con niñ@s desnud@s.