• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Naked 6 year old on the cover of Government funded fashion magazine..

Nathan Petrelli

Civilian
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
700
Reaction score
0
Points
11
Magazine features naked 6 yo on cover

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he can't stand artwork that depicts naked children.
Mr Rudd on Sunday said work such as that shown in this month's edition of Art Monthly Australia did the opposite of restoring dignity to the debate over depictions of children in art.
The taxpayer-funded magazine used a picture of a naked six-year-old girl on the cover of its July edition in protest against the treatment of artist Bill Henson.
Angered by the "hysteria" over Henson's pictures of a 13-year-old girl, the magazine also has a number of highly sexualised images inside, according to the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.
Art Monthly editor Maurice O'Riordan said he hoped the July edition would restore some "dignity to the debate".
Mr Rudd was asked if the picture restored dignity.
"If you ask for my personal view, no it doesn't. It does the reverse," he told ABC television.
"My view hasn't changed on this. We're talking about the innocence of little children here.
"A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way.
"I have very deep, strong, personal views on this, which is that we should be on about maximising the protection of children.
"I don't think this is a step in the right direction at all."
Mr Rudd said he had no idea what the motivation for the Art Monthly pictures was.
"But I've got to say my interest and the interest of many Australians, I think most Australians, is to protect little children and restore some innocence to childhood," he said.
"Frankly, I can't stand this stuff."
Child protection campaigner Hetty Johnston hopes community outrage over the picture will lead to laws banning such photos.
Bravehearts executive director Mrs Johnston branded it "sexual exploitation of children".
"I don't know if they are trying to get some notoriety on the back of Bill Henson but it is irresponsible," Mrs Johnston said.
"It is not the normal state of affairs. Yes it is natural and beautiful (a naked child) but it is also private.
"This child is six and cannot possibly give consent but this photo is taken at the whims and benefits of adults.
"Children won't be buying it. Adults will. It's not in the best interest of children."
Mrs Johnston is heartened by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's opposition to the photo and said his response and community outrage would help her push for laws banning such photos.
She said the prime minister has made his view "very, very clear" and she had never felt more confident of the direction Australia was taking on child protection, during her 11 years of campaigning.
Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop is concerned a child has been exploited to make a political point.
"I support artistic freedom, freedom of expression, but I am concerned if there's exploitation of children," the Opposition's workplace spokeswoman told Sky News.
"Unfortunately, this sounds as if a child has been exploited for the purposes of making a political point.
"There are other ways of making a point in support of freedom of expression and artistic expression particularly."



http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/jul/06/aap-magazine-features-naked-6-yo-on-cover/

I find this disgusting:

Angered by the "hysteria" over Henson's pictures of a 13-year-old girl, the magazine also has a number of highly sexualised images inside, according to the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.
Art Monthly editor Maurice O'Riordan said he hoped the July edition would restore some "dignity to the debate".

How can sexually explicit pictures of a naked 6 year old restore some dignity to the debate? The cover of this magazine clearly shows the 6 year olds vagina too. On the freaking cover, that doesn't scream dignity.

I'm disgusted by all thats been happening, it is clearly a case of closet pedophiles who have found a way to mass-distribute child pornography to the rest of the low life scum bags who get off over this. Because really, who even considers sexually explicit pictures of a naked 6 year old art? If I ever saw a picture of a naked 6 year old with her vagina showing, I definitely wouldn't be talking about how it is a beautiful piece of art..
 
It's one thing to have pictures of children bathing in a private, family album where parents can dote upon the beauty of their naked child. God knows my parents have plenty of them. But to publicly show a nude child? This is porno for pedophiles.
 
Once the kid is out of the baby range, the naked-ness does come off a tad weird. If it's with a parent or whatever, possibly.
 
I made the mistake of googeling the artist in question name & ugh this guy is an artist ? The governments should be cracking down on this & not Video Games because of bad parenting :o
 
yep, he lives in my city too. I'm thinking about finding his number and harassing him.
 
Have you seen the cover? She is sitting with her left leg, the furthest crossed and her right leg, which is closest to the camera up. Which clearly shows her vagina.
Just looked, no you can't. I think this is all hype no substance. Disney movies are probably more exploitive and dangerous to kids morals than some art mag no kid would ever see.
 
Just looked, no you can't. I think this is all hype no substance. Disney movies are probably more exploitive and dangerous to kids morals than some art mag no kid would ever see.

The news reporter described the picture and said that the girls vagina was visible, must be over exaggerating it then.

And come on. Nobody is worried little kids are going to look at it, people are worried sick old men and women are. Australia has a pretty big pedophile problem at the moment. A guy who raped a 5 year old and has offended his whole life with children had all charges dropped recently by a judge who claimed he wont have a fair trial.. The last thing this country needs is a bunch of "artistic" middle aged closet pedophiles exploiting kids and publishing this type of ****.
 
Nothing but shadow to see if it could even be seen, it's about as tasteful as it could be for what it is. Criminalizing art isn't the way to handle those problems in my opinion, but it's not my country.
 
Canada too... I think.

This is like that guy who starved the dog to death and called it 'art'.. well maybe not that bad but, you know, it's something that is clearly morally wrong that sick ****s are getting away with in the name of "art"... oh and that girls parents are *****e's in my opinion.
 
Ummm...can someone PM me the cover?? I wanna see how bad it is...
 
The news reporter described the picture and said that the girls vagina was visible, must be over exaggerating it then.

And come on. Nobody is worried little kids are going to look at it, people are worried sick old men and women are. Australia has a pretty big pedophile problem at the moment. A guy who raped a 5 year old and has offended his whole life with children had all charges dropped recently by a judge who claimed he wont have a fair trial.. The last thing this country needs is a bunch of "artistic" middle aged closet pedophiles exploiting kids and publishing this type of ****.

I guess when you see a picture of a naked woman, you automatically think "it's PRON".

The nude has been a part of art since it's beginnings, but there's still a good line between art and pornography.
 
Nothing but shadow to see if it could even be seen, it's about as tasteful as it could be for what it is. Criminalizing art isn't the way to handle those problems in my opinion, but it's not my country.

But that isn't art. Its a naked child, nothing artistic about that.

And it doesn't matter which country or not, its still not something that should be published.


I guess when you see a picture of a naked woman, you automatically think "it's PRON".

The nude has been a part of art since it's beginnings, but there's still a good line between art and pornography.


But they did in protest of someone who took photos of naked 13 year olds and called it art. If they wanted to show nakedness in an artistic way, why not show someone who is 18? 6 is a bit too young, as any age up to 18.
 
Its not that bad...I cant see a vagina, and its just a met art shoot...who the hell cares?
 
But they did in protest of someone who took photos of naked 13 year olds and called it art. If they wanted to show nakedness in an artistic way, why not show someone who is 18? 6 is a bit too young, as any age up to 18.

Your opinion, and I doubt you're an art expert.
 
Your opinion, and I doubt you're an art expert.


I doubt you are an art expert either. But you are trying to justify naked pictures of a 6 year old. You don't need to be an art expert to know the difference between right and wrong..

If I take naked photos of a little kid and hang them through my house and my bedroom, would you consider me an artist, or a pedophile?
 
Depends on whether you have a history in the field of art, or if you have a thing for children.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"