The age of consent used to be about when a person could get married, not about sex per se. Now it is used to decide if one is a paedophile !

Meanwhile laws against adultery and pre-marital sex are no longer enforced.

Add to this mix, the increasing sexualisation of our society, including among young girls who are maturing at an earlier age and it’s no wonder we have men (it’s mostly men) who have been given the signal that sex outside of marriage is ‘normal’, tempted by these younger girls who are provoking them and then acting on it !

In Jewish culture, the basis of our Christian culture, a boy was considered a man at age 12 and in many cultures it has been quite normal to have very young brides. Are these paedophiles ? The difference is that these are the start of life long commitments and in a context where sex outside marriage is not tolerated, regardless of age.

It is therefore, not that these people, today, are paedophiles, a term which has been broadened to include many who would not be so classified in the past, but that they are having sex outside marriage.

I do not condone paedophiles, especially ‘true’ paedophiles (involving someone who is prepubescent) , nor those who take advantage of someone younger than themselves. I also have little doubt that there are more ‘true’ paedophiles than there were in the past.

I believe that we as Christians may be being caught up in a new, non-Biblical, morality, where almost anything is ok after a certain age, instead of the Biblical view of sex being only between a married couple (male female only).

Tim Pearce, WA

Ewan McDonald.

I just love the consistency in this society we live in, don’t you?

Mark Rabich, Melbourne

But simply put, when it comes to our children our first and only question is if it is exploitative or whether the innocence of the child is being comprominsed by the activity in any way shape or form. We must err on the side of caution.

Personally, I cannot fathom how the parents of the children have not been raked over the coals for this. It is reprehensible.

Garth Penglase

Would you consider it to be ethical for a secondary school art teacher to take photos of naked 12 and 13 year old students as part of art classes and then to display them publicly?

Mike Evans

As I said, there is certainly a place for the nude form in genuine art. However, I am not sure I am as keen as you are to imply that somehow we can lump Michelangelo and Bill Henson together. It seems to me there are some pretty major differences going on there!

As to parents worried about photographing their own children, yes, there are concerns. We do live in fearful times. And sometimes we can go too far. But it is one thing for a parent to photograph their own children, and presumably have those photos stay in the family photo albums. It is another thing to exploit young children for financial gain and public notoriety, don’t you think?

A snap of a playful two-year-old in the bath tub is a far cry from a provocatively and deliberately choreographed pose of a child by some stranger. The later seems like exploitation to me, while the former does not.

In an age of child sexual abuse, and paedophilia, I would always rather err on the side of caution, both as a parent and as a citizen. I should think that you should too.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Thanks for your response. I don’t deny the existence of paedophiles, but I think society has gone way overboard with its paranoia about protecting children from them. There have been cases in America where parents have been prosecuted for photographing their own children in the bath, a commonplace scenario in more innocent times.

Similarly there have been concerns raised in the media about naked babies in nappy ads, and even about print advertisements for children’s clothes. Anyone with a camera in a public place where there are children is now a paedophile suspect. I’ve even felt a bit concerned myself photographing my kids (and others) at kindy and school events.

I don’t know what goes on in the mind of a paedophile, but have we got to the situation where we all need to think like one?

I recently was privileged to visit the Vatican Museums and the Sistine Chapel. There are naked people everywhere, in statues and frescoes, including children and cherubs, a bit of a worry given the Catholic Church’s problems with many of its priests. I wonder what Michaelangelo would make of the current furore?

Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

Question: What is the difference between art and pornography?

Answer: The lighting.

Frank Norros

Art appreciation may be subjective – a matter of taste – but the wellbeing and protection of children is not. We have a moral obligation, a duty of care, as a civilised society, to ensure that children are protected. We have an objective moral duty to protect children from exploitation and abuse. Children should be allowed to be children, and not dragged into the adult world prematurely.

And since you mention God, let me finish the picture. The human body as originally created by God was indeed good, as he pronounced. But we now live in a fallen world. So every good thing that God has created is now liable to be abused and misused. Now the human body is often associated with lust, exploitation and greed.

While you may more or less harmlessly enjoy looking at a naked child, there are far too many others who become sexually aroused, and some will seek to carry out their feelings on children. Only someone living in a fairytale land will deny the very real existence of paedophiles and child sexual abuse.

But our libertarians and “art lovers” are more concerned about feeding the desires and whims of adults, than they are about protecting the interests of the child. That is the real issue here, not some argument about what is art, and/or demands for “freedom of expression” as many are arguing. If we lived in a perfect world, we could perhaps freely enjoy nudity in our works of art. But we don’t, so concerns for the general good, and for our children, should trump the rights of “artists” to laugh all the way to the bank with their insensitive and irresponsible “art”.

I am not saying there is no place for nudity in art, but in an uber-sexualised age such as ours, our children should be our top priority; and a little self-restraint from our “artists” would be in order here.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch