Bill Henson ... again

[soulman]

But none of those are research. And the last two articles aren't about models at all...

Indeed. And none of it bears the slightest relevance to Henson, or his subjects, who are not fashion models.

[ElectricImages]

Again I am drawn back into this debate by half-truths and skewed "facts".

The Hensen debate isn't about FASHION MODELS or EATING DISORDERS per se. It is about the potential consequences, largely emotional, of using under-age photographic models for nude studies when they are not sufficiently experienced to make an informed decision about their own involvement. Slipping in the word "suicide" as an afterthought to your own unrelated research is disingenuous in my opinion.

If you read the thread, you'll find that the threat of suicide, eating disorders, and what have you is raised by people who think modelling is harmful, around Post #40 in this thread. It wasn't raised by me, but I've been compelled to respond because the claims about modelling were erroneous.

I've already addressed the question of informed consent with regards to young models elsewhere.

A better analogy might be to the consequences of juvenile females being exposed by the sharing of naked images over mobile phones! The issue is one of the mental trauma that results when the subject realises what has happened. True, Hensen doesn't take poor quality, semi-pornographic images and publish them via the telecommunications system. That said, the consequences for his under-aged models may well be analogous. As far as I'm aware no-one has actually done any research on that aspect of his work. Just because no-one has complained doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. For example, systematic abuse in the work place often goes unreported for years before one brave soul speaks out and starts an avalanche of "me too" reports! Just ask the Catholic Church about that if you need confirmation (no pun intended).

Victims of emotional trauma and abuse may take a lifetime to finally admit the consequences for them, and some NEVER will! That doesn't mean it didn't happen! it also doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise some care about foreseeable risks to prevent it from happening!

The crux of your argument appears to be based on the following:

1. "potential consequences, largely emotional"
2. "the consequences for his under-aged models may well be analogous [to girls putting their scantily clad images on Facebook]"
3. "Just because no-one has complained doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist"

All of this is supposition, without any evidence. If you're such a fan of "facts" and "truth," well the truth is that not one of Henson's dozens of models has ever come forward to complain about mistreatment or exploitation in the course of his 30-year career. All this despite the massive media and political firestorms that whip everyone up into a self-righteous fury every few years.

While you're speculating about problems that might or might not exist - if there "might be problems" with everything, that simply haven't been reported, you may as well ban children from every activity in life until they turn 18, except the basics of eating, drinking, and sleeping. Except that that regime could have potential consequences, largely emotional, too, I suspect.

Wrapping kids up in cotton wool and not allowing them to take responsibility and make decisions is what is wrong with raising children today in the first place. Children become teenagers or young adults and make BAD decisions, and people are SO SURPRISED that children who have had all the decisions made for them for years and years and who have been "protected" from anything with "potential consequences" have no ability to make good decisions later in life.

Education is the answer. These "protections" are a gilded birdcage, and they may let nothing in , but they never let the child out either.

[WhoDo]

All of this is supposition, without any evidence.

Exactly, because as you yourself said "there is no evidence". Does that mean there is no risk? Absolutely NOT!

If you're such a fan of "facts" and "truth," well the truth is that not one of Henson's dozens of models has ever come forward to complain about mistreatment or exploitation in the course of his 30-year career. All this despite the massive media and political firestorms that whip everyone up into a self-righteous fury every few years.

No, YOU are the one claiming your position has the support of facts, research and evidence. I don't see any that is relevant to the question at hand. Just a lot of interpolation from other areas. I have spoken all along about unacceptable RISK. Nothing you've written convinces me otherwise.

While you're speculating about problems that might or might not exist - if there "might be problems" with everything, that simply haven't been reported, you may as well ban children from every activity in life until they turn 18, except the basics of eating, drinking, and sleeping. Except that that regime could have potential consequences, largely emotional, too, I suspect.

Wrapping kids up in cotton wool and not allowing them to take responsibility and make decisions is what is wrong with raising children today in the first place. Children become teenagers or young adults and make BAD decisions, and people are SO SURPRISED that children who have had all the decisions made for them for years and years and who have been "protected" from anything with "potential consequences" have no ability to make good decisions later in life.

Emotive over-statement. I have suggested nothing of the kind. I have simply suggested that exposing 12 year olds to Hensen's art poses a high RISK. I'm not prepared to take that risk. Apparently you are ... until, that is, it is your son or daughter for whom you are making a potentially life-changing decision. I hope your conscience will always remain free of any personal recriminations over that choice.

Education is the answer. These "protections" are a gilded birdcage, and they may let nothing in , but they never let the child out either.

More emotive argument. It is a poor strategy in debate to set your own parameters and argue to those rather than addressing the original parameters of the opposing view. * removed, members are entitled to an opinion that differs to your own, attacking them for that opinion is not on* Don't answer; it was a rhetorical question only.

PS. By all means have the last word in this exchange. It evidently seems important to you and it certainly isn't to me. Cheers.

[Kym]

Closed before it gets personal.

There are clearly varying views that won't change and I can't see any more value in the discussion.

[ving]

kermit rules!