Okay mousie, here I go

Yours is the type of fI was hoping to receive.

I too realise that there is definitely nothing pornographic in the photo, but like you I had to consider whether I would want a photo of a daughter to be published, or posted on the internet for all to see.

The answer is a resounding NO , for the reasons you have already stated

Another reason that springs to mind is that we do not own our children, and so IMO have no right to publish semi-revealing photos of them for the whole world to ogle at.

A child, such as the beautiful young girl in the photo would have good reason to resent her mother's actions when she becomes more self-aware.

I sincerely hope I'm ...

Okay mousie, here I go

Yours is the type of fI was hoping to receive.

I too realise that there is definitely nothing pornographic in the photo, but like you I had to consider whether I would want a photo of a daughter to be published, or posted on the internet for all to see.

The answer is a resounding NO , for the reasons you have already stated

Another reason that springs to mind is that we do not own our children, and so IMO have no right to publish semi-revealing photos of them for the whole world to ogle at.

A child, such as the beautiful young girl in the photo would have good reason to resent her mother's actions when she becomes more self-aware.

I sincerely hope I'm not coming across as a prude, because I'm anything but, however this is an invasion of a child's privacy

The concern surely is that a paedophile might use such a photo for gratification and pass it to similar minded friends.

It's a question of us allowing the X% of males who are paedophiles from allowing the rest of society see perfectly proper photos. I suggest that stopping all nudest beaches because X paedophiles might frequent such places. May not this example as a nude paedophile might have difficulty in not displaying his propensity for children's bodies. But I hope you see my point.

All males cannot be tarred with the one brush due to the few who are deviants. Sometimes the friendly uncle-type is difficult to tell from the deviant. If we, the adults cannot tell the good from the bad th...

The concern surely is that a paedophile might use such a photo for gratification and pass it to similar minded friends.

It's a question of us allowing the X% of males who are paedophiles from allowing the rest of society see perfectly proper photos. I suggest that stopping all nudest beaches because X paedophiles might frequent such places. May not this example as a nude paedophile might have difficulty in not displaying his propensity for children's bodies. But I hope you see my point.

All males cannot be tarred with the one brush due to the few who are deviants. Sometimes the friendly uncle-type is difficult to tell from the deviant. If we, the adults cannot tell the good from the bad then how can kids? If we prevent the bad from 'trying it on' in a public place, will they then instead attempt more devious methods that are harder to discover?

Sorry that I have only questions but no answers.

From time to time there is a great fuss made about whether some object is a work of art or pornographic.
Art and (not or) Pornography by DONALD BROOK, Art Monthly Australia #211

[...] ‘[E]very photographic act is now more readily viewable through the prism of victim and abuser, rather than artist and subject.’ [...] ‘Nudity is not obscenity’. [...] ‘It’s a fine line between sensualising and sexualising them [children]’. [...]
Artistic intention and public reception don’t always see eye to eye. Sometimes a work reveals more than the artist intends [...]. Melbourne artist Polixeni Papapetrou, t...

read more»

From time to time there is a great fuss made about whether some object is a work of art or pornographic.
Art and (not or) Pornography by DONALD BROOK, Art Monthly Australia #211

[...] ‘[E]very photographic act is now more readily viewable through the prism of victim and abuser, rather than artist and subject.’ [...] ‘Nudity is not obscenity’. [...] ‘It’s a fine line between sensualising and sexualising them [children]’. [...]
Artistic intention and public reception don’t always see eye to eye. Sometimes a work reveals more than the artist intends [...]. Melbourne artist Polixeni Papapetrou, the artist of this month’s cover image, has also borne her share of censorship and moral outrage, particularly with the nude photographs of her daughter Olympia. ‘My criminality appears to rest on the notion that art has somehow supplanted my maternal duty’, she said earlier this year in an interview with Australian Centre of Photography Director Alasdair Foster. The transgression of the artist-mother – especially one who dares to ‘implicate’ her own child in the process – can cut deeper than any questions surrounding the male gaze as a domain for art and exploitation.

The choice of Papapetrou’s Olympia as Lewis Carroll’s Beatrice Hatch before White Cliffs (2003) for our cover may be seen as controversial but is made in the hope of restoring some dignity to the debate; to validate nudity and childhood as subjects for art; to surrender to the power of the imagination (in children and adults) and dialogue without crippling them through fear-mongering and repression.

There is, admittedly, a fair amount concerning sex and sexuality in this issue [...]

Loc. cit., Editorial, emphases by me, J.

The concern surely is that a paedophile might use such a photo for gratification and pass it to similar minded friends.

There is no image pure and chaste
that won’t find some perverted taste:
some men may tremble at those sights
of lissome lasses in their whites,
and some derive the keenest joy
from pictures of a well-dressed boy;
some welcome junk-mail with a grin
who favour photographs therein,
and, shunning models, others stare
at images of underwear.
Ought we to ban each catalogue
which might set even one agog,
and should we censor magazines.
which could be used for carnal means?
Thus, if we prove a paedophile
has found some joy in Country Style,
and often rea...

The concern surely is that a paedophile might use such a photo for gratification and pass it to similar minded friends.

There is no image pure and chaste
that won’t find some perverted taste:
some men may tremble at those sights
of lissome lasses in their whites,
and some derive the keenest joy
from pictures of a well-dressed boy;
some welcome junk-mail with a grin
who favour photographs therein,
and, shunning models, others stare
at images of underwear.
Ought we to ban each catalogue
which might set even one agog,
and should we censor magazines.
which could be used for carnal means?
Thus, if we prove a paedophile
has found some joy in Country Style,
and often reads, with foul intent,
say, Inside Film or Monument,
the Lancet, Mad, the Village Voice,
Get Up and Go, Computer Choice,
perhaps some quarterly reviews
or Australasian Transport News,
Down Under Quilts or Marie Claire,
ought we to burn them then and there?

from Deadman’s blog