In the Herald Sun today there's an article relating to the publication of artistic nude photos of a girl when she was 6. She's now 11. The photos appear in Art Monthly.
Her mother took the photos, but her father wrote an essay that points out that the photos could provoke inappropriate responses and "sinful desires".
Now, I looked at the cover and didn't see anything sexual in it. But that's just me (and lot of other people I'm sure). What did bother me is what the Australian Classification Board will do. In due course, it will classify the photos.
Quote "Under the law, a publication can be classified unrestricted, category one or two restricted or "refused classification" - in which case it is banned from Australia.
If it is deemed to be in either of the two restricted categories it will only be available to people aged over 18."
If the content is deemed inappropriate (and I'm not arguing whether it should or shouldn't be), why would you want to make it available at all, especially when (and I know from personal experience), the perpetrators of child sexual abuse (which is what they are talking about but beating around the bush) are generally males over 18. They say it will need to be sold in a sealed cover - exactly like bloody porno mags are! If they do this, they are just baiting those who have the "sinful desires".
Stuff like this makes my head spin. What a sad world we live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment