May 29, 2008 | Graham

Boticelli’s not a pornographer, so why is Henson?

The central improbability of the Henson porngraphy case is the idea that paedophiles will download pictures of his nudes off the net and use them for gratification.
Why are porn sites still one of the surest ways to make money on the Internet? Because picutres of real naked people overtly engaging in sexual acts are orders of magnitude more stimulating than standing in front of The Birth of Venus. Leda and the Swan doesn’t do it for most either.
When it comes to masturbation the net outsells Penthouse which outsells the Louvre catalogue.
So, on the assumption that apart from their predilection for younger people their heirarchies of sexual stimulation are miuch like the rest of the population, why would anyone think that Henson’s photos represent an attraction to paedophiles?

Posted by Graham at 8:37 am | Comments (2) |
Filed under: Arts


  1. It’s quite strange indeed. I presume (or at least hope) this whole silly saga will end up with the charges being dropped.

    Comment by Guy — May 30, 2008 @ 6:10 am

  2. Its the way the photographs were done that sold me that its paedophilic (is there such a word?).
    One of the photos of a young girl showed a look on her face that said, “Im going to be raped, someone please help”.
    Who knows the artist much at a personal level. He has a history of portaying the girls as sexual victims. Maybe there have been many complaints to police about him over many years. Maybe cops know more about him than the media can print. Its a bad age for innocence. If he gets a sentence of some kind it would be better for the children of the world of tomorrow. Thats me of course:)
    I think Gods Word also supports the chidren and not the hungry, lustful artist. Why dont they just photograph life without the sex bit that stirs immoral juices? Anything for fame is a poor master.

    Comment by gibo — May 31, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.