Re: Bill Henson's Exhibition Closed Down
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:27 pm
Does it? I don't accept that. I accept that, to you, that connection probably exists. But take an image of a newborn infant. Nude. Exquisitely and discreetly illuminated. Sensual? Quite likely. Sexual? Probably not.
lol not accepting it is not important really. its just quite simply the definition in this context. you can accept it or not. thats up to you. in the context of describing a naked female form in particular, the english language uses the term "sensual" as a description of sesory arousal...normally sexual.
the naked baby example again is just not applicable. who describes a naked newborn as sensual ? never heard that term used to describe a naked child. not ever. not in any circles, not on the net, not in ral life, not in any media. not anywhere. sorry mate, i know you've harped on about me making generalistaions in my post but i cant interview every person in australia and ask for their views on this but i think i could safely say that describing a newborn naked in a photo as "sensual" is very, very, very rare indeed.
That would probably say more about the absence of emotional maturity on the part of the husband (or wife) than anything else. I know lots of ladies to whom I would happily make such a comment. In the presence of their partner, and also in the presence of mine. Hell, I even know a couple of guys to whom I might even make such a comment.
operating words being you "know" them. ie: there is a clear understanding between the individuals in the scenario and everyone understand the context its being used in. this is no different to the argument against using the term "wog". and you saying...hey i know some guys who have no problem with me calling them a "wog" so that makes it ok to use the term to any wog i come across. sorry mate, doesnt work that way.
I think much of this also derives from the levels of emotional maturity we may have attained. How defensive are we about certain things? One thing that I've observed is that many males are very insecure, and very defensive, when there is absolutely no need to be so. This is very true for males from their mid to late teens through to the late forties, and frequently well beyond. Females are are far less insecure in that regard. It is those insecurities in the male that lead to the sort of reactions that you describe; those are reactions that are absent from my repertoire.
i've read this a couple of times and wondered what your getting at. to me it reads..."chris you are an emotinally immature, insecure man, while i am a mature, wise man." ...i'll just leave that alone for the moment.
You're saying that they do; I have never said any such thing. I am highlighting that they might, nothing more.
lol no, i'm just addressing your point that the fact a neck can be arousing or sensual or whatever is not a bad thing neither is it important to the discussion. you raised it cos i assume its a defense that some people might find necks arousing...everyone's different, everyone has different interpretations. well yeah...so ? it gets back gain to the age of the individuals.
What is "underage" ?
clearly, underage is under 18.
Again, it is you that is doing the interpretation here.
that is not an interpretation.
Are you qualified to talk on behalf of the whole of Australia's population? If not ...
yes. lol
And let's take, for a moment, your comment comparing sex and pornography: what about a couple - married or not - who might videotape themselves engaging in sex. They may then later view that recording for ... who knows what for? Who cares? Is that pornography? What if they use that for their own arousal; is that pornography? What if they share that with some friends, as some may do? Is that porn? Who am I to pass judgment on that? I'm certainly not qualified to do so; are you?
yes, by definition it is pornography. i'm not judging it AT ALL. as long as its between consenting adults, knock yourself out. i could care less. neither would i have cared less if these were photos of adults.
Well, no. Not all, and not at all.
lol well, no, you;re right there are no absolutes in this world. no need to be pedantic. but seriously. if walking into someones home we saw a photo of mom and dad with their 12yo son and 15 yo daughter stark naked, i would imagine that the VAST majority of people living in this country would be thinking WTF ??? come on mate. you;re being argumentative here, i think YOU know that aswell.
Why Nigeria? Why not South Africa? What about Sweden?
being a little pedantic again. the country itself i included isnt really important. what is relevant is the point that different countries have differnet cultures, differnt customs and differnt interpretations of what is and is not socially acceptable. so yes, it could be sth africa or sweden...again...who cares what country you use as an example ? lets say uzbekehstan.
Yes I see sensuality, but not sexuality. That is my assessment. That is me, exercising my judgment. I have no issues with that, and I have no issues with you exercising your judgment. And if that means that you come to a different end point, I have no issues with that. But it seems that if I come to a different endpoint, you might have issues with that. Is that problematic for you? If so, why? If not, then what, exactly, is the issue that you have ?
while the live and let live concept is admirable, it is unfortunately not applicable in any society. what is acceptable to gary stark is irrelvant at this point. what's relevant is what is the law ? the law for the most part, being based on what society's viewpoints and expected standards are. what i';m asking you is when would this have been considered sexual instead of sensual ? what would the photograph have had to portray to change it from sensual to sexual ?
All of which are set by, to use your own words, "the judgment of individuals". Or is parliament no longer comprised of indiviuduals?
yes, they are individuals...and.... ???
But it is precisely the point. Avoiding it doesn't make it go away.
i'm not avoiding it at all. (like you have avoided the censorship discussion ) i've answered it several times and you just skirt around the issue. you either dont understand it, dont accept it or dont agree with it. i dont see we're gonna get much result out of that...we just agree to disagree.
And therein lies a very serious problem: how in the world do you feel you are able to even offer a comment on a subject, the content of which you now admit you have zero experience of? Zero experience of Henson's work - which is the subject of this thread - surely brings your credibility in this topic to ... zero.
Sorry, I'm not trying to flame you here, but really ...
flaming me ? no. i dont think so becasue my knowledege of hensons work is completely irrelevent. i wasnt commenting on his body of work as a whole nor on him as a person. i;m commenting on THIS work that i have seen. why do i need to know about his last 15 years ? how will that better able me to assess what my values are and whether or not i think children depicted naked in this way is unacceptable ? it doesnt make one iota of difference if i've known his work for 5 minutes or 5 decades. please advise how knowledge of his work for the last 15 years is important in this discussion.
Serious problem #2: journalists are there to report the stories, not to be the story. Self interest needs to be declared, regardless of the realm. Journalistic integrity needs to be maintained, and in this instance, I don't see that this has occurred.
i dont know the reporter. never heard of him/ her. never seen him/ her. i dont see the connection. i saw the pictures, i got the facts about the ages. i made my assessement and that assessment had nothing to do with the reporter.
sorry...didnt answer the rest cos it wsa just argumentative and didnt really lend itself to exploring this debate.