and then I see a story like this one from Australia. Certain people there, including Kevin Rudd, are all hot and bothered over what must be the most boring, un-titillating picture of a naked child ever put on public view.
Honestly, the thought process behind their outrage is a mystery to me--perhaps because there isn't one. Do these idiots actually believe there are scads of repressed pedophiles out there ready to morph into slavering sexual predators at the mere sight of prepubescent skin? Maybe we should cover little boys and girls with burkhas. Then they'll all be perfectly safe. Just ask the women of Afghanistan.
The worst thing about this nudity=porn mentality is that it murders beauty. Children are exquisite beings, it's a joy to look at them. Yes, there is a sensual pleasure attached to that experience, just as there is sensuality in sniffing a flower or watching a horse run. I suppose that pleasure exists along a continuum with frank sexual arousal but that doesn't make it the same thing.
Most people understand that (check out the comments on the article), but unfortunately the ones who don't seem to be ruling the world at the moment. Anti-pornography lunatics are popping up everywhere these days, even in Moonbatland.
It's very disturbing, but here's hoping the hysteria passes. Meanwhile, this blog will do its bit to promote more "disgusting" art. These are for Mr. Rudd.
Madonna and Child, Cornelius Van Haarlem, 1617
Prince Heinrich Lubomirski as the Genius of Fame, Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun, 1789
Venus and Cupid at Vulcan's Forge (detail), Palma Giovane, c.1610
The Bather, Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun, 1792
*The title of this post originally made reference to "puritanical morons," but since I took a commenter to task elsewhere for calling me a moron, I decided I should practice what I preach. The new title doesn't have quite the same punch, alas.