I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love. Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving! We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13828
I have looked at the cover of the Australian art magazine that has caused some fuss and bother in Australia.
To me no right thinking person would ever associate this picture with any sexual thing. There is no pornography here. The child is in an innocent naked pose. No genitals are on view and the picture is even more innocent than those of Otto Lohmüler's pictures of naked boys in the basis that they show genitals.
I am NOT speaking of the law. Not. Responses to this post about "that is what the law says" will be treated as irrelevant. I am speaking of common sense.
Where a picture is artistic, and where there is no sexual act, real or implied, depicted, I see every reason for that picture, or statue, or artistic work, or photograph to exist. it may be criticised as good or bad art, but the originator should not be in fear, nor should those who reproduce it.
By allowing our legislators to ban such pictures we allow the lunatic fringes of control and the thought police to rule us in fear. We let the new puritans take over.
How long until these moral guardians turn the calendar back and execute homosexuals?
It is time to stop this "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" inexorable slide to stern morals.