I think we have to accept that paedophiles potentially will find any image of a child potentially erotic. I think this is inescapable but, I also believe that for most of them the Henson images would really be way down the scale of interest. If everyone is serious about stopping these people finding something titilating in the images of children, then the only logical answer is the most extreme which is to stop people photographing children altogether, which is absurd.

Reuben, I do not believe closing down the exhibit because someone might find the images titilating–like I say I do not think they would–really has any traction here. This controversy has brought out the worst in society, now with the gallery owner being threatened.

Also, we as a society are in real trouble if we start equating nudity inescabably with sex. Why, because this makes every parent or family member who has ever taken a naken photograph of their child a pornographer.

For me to come to this conclusion is difficult because of my history of abuse and suspicion about the motives of photographers. But like I said before, any image of a child is potentially stimulating to a paedophile, so drawing a line based on potential provocation is the begining of a very slippery slope indeed. This is something I think neither Hetty Johnston or Miranda Devine, who is appears started this widespread community outrage of two, thought of.

Lastly, I have to take a swing a Hetty Johnston. I met her in the mid 1990s, partly because of being a abuse survivor. I was distictly unimpressed, I do not want to wallow in my victimhood for the rest of my life! I think we must be very careful here because underneath her cause (the prevention of child sexual abuse) that no sane person would argue against lie other more radical agendas and methods (including persecuting Henson). The problem is that because she has become the patron saint of children, people are fearful to criticize her, lest she label them as paedophile sympathisers.

Like I said before. Coming to these conclusions is difficult, but I am decisive. I am still getting over my abuse. I found out 8 years ago a friend of mine abused children before he suicided. So there are complex issues to deal with at the outset that I ruminate over. But in the end, picking on Henson’s art is madness and if the charges stick, woebetide anyone who photographs children again.

MiSociety… Fair comment Reuben and a very good point.

More like a clear win for reactionary censorship conservatives with no concept of art.

To call Bill Henson “Obsessed with underage nudity” is to completely miss the point of the work and ignore a life spent pursuing excellence in photographic art, not to mention a total slap in the face for one of Australia’s true masters.

I urge those who have expressed “moral outrage” to look at Hensons boarder body of work to see his evolution to this point and beyond, rather than focus on the media sensation surrounding a small section of images…J Rotham

MiSociety says: It has not been appropriate to release some of the comments we have received from both sides of this hot debate (some language a little strong and others somewhat rude and irrational). We did not publish any of the images. What this controversy has highlighted is just how strongly people from both sides of the fence feel about what is and what is not ‘Art’. MiSociety is only to happy to publish some good rational discussion regarding this exhibition.