But it hasn't.
I'll make this very simple, because it is very simple. The human body, at any age, is not pornography. Images of it are not pornography unless it is actually involved in some kind of sexual activity. Of course there are those who may be aroused by non-sexual photographs of human bodies doing nothing in various stages of undress, but then some people may be aroused by cars or any number of odd things. Paraphilias can be attached to any image or object in creation. The simple fact that someone somewhere might be aroused by a picture does not make it pornography. If it did, everything would be "pornography".
I know many of you have "private moments" looking at this photograph, but that doesn't mean it should be adults-only.
For the word to have any useful meaning whatsoever, "pornography" requires an objective sexual element.
And as to the present case, obviously the Henson photographs do not qualify. Nor did the ones someone once took of tigtog. There is nothing intrinsically erotic about them*. The human body is not porn just because it is naked. And children are not sexual objects.
Really, who are these weirdos who think they are? Why are they so prominent in the nation's newspapers?
Look, if you're a sanctimonious hand-wringing moral majority conservative - or swept-up hanger-on - then please take a deep breath and have a good hard look at yourself. Why would you look at a photograph of a child and start thinking about sex? That says something disturbing about you, not the image. It's not revolting - you are. Please, book yourself in to see some kind of mental health professional and work through these sicko inclinations before you make any more of a dickhead of yourself.
Look into the inkblot. If you see child pornography, get help.
Grow up, people. Seriously.
Why don't you direct your energies to actually protecting children from actual child abuse, rather than distracting from the issue with this rubbish? Actual children who are actually in danger would be so very grateful. (Also children with no access to decent medical care or schooling, if you could find it in your busy denunciating schedule to consider their plight.)
*By reports. I haven't seen the now-removed images myself. But the condemnation has simply been based on their being of unclothed adolescents, and I haven't heard any evidence that they actually "sexualise" them - just that nakedness is automatically pornography. Which is the silly claim I'm retorting to here.
UPDATE: The "debate" has given certain conservatives a fine opportunity to demonise their opponents, though.
And, of course, a headline like "Arts elite attacks PM over images" is solid political gold for Kevin Rudd's standing with the Bolt-reading "elite"-fearing sheep; hopefully the distraction will kill off Brendy's efforts to drag us down the road of petrol policy idiocy.
