to think Brooke Shields has irresponsible parents?

[StrictlyBoogying]

Why was she allowed to be photographed and filmed in a provocative manner when she was a child? Her Mother managed her career and obviously put money before her child's welfare.

What's snide about that, Curiosity? or desperate? Honestly, i don't see it. I am trying to make the point that if you stand with the conservatives on sexual issues, especially around imagery etc, you can end up feeding censorship and denying sexual expression to women etc etc, as your aims are so different (generally). I think you need to box clever and understand that you are NOT on the same page as these people if you want women's liberation. That comment by me was in no way personal.

I do acknowledge though that Dittany and I seem to rub each other up the wrong way, so I will just agree to disagree on some things with her and leave the thread now. I agree with you that when the tone starts getting a bit arsey it does affect the quality of the thread, so to avoid stoking that further I will bow out.

BOF - `it seemed personal in this context TBH. If you could keep it civil I have been quite interested in reading both of your arguments.

I will look at that later, thanks. Yep, it is shit that BS's wishes haven't been respected, and crap that her mother effectively flogged them off along with the copyright.

Just that the wishes don't come into it when copyright is concerned- it's the way it works, isn't it? Doesn't mean we can't say it's a shame for her, but Doing The Right Thing is usually way down people's list of priorities when there's a buck to be made and a reputation established. As evidenced by her mother- to answer your OP, YANBU.

Honestly though, I have got to go [weary smile after no sleep and coalface kid stuff to do]

Just looked at that photo The worst thing isn't that she's naked it's that she's in such a provocative pose.

Can't weigh in with any heavyweight intellectual arguments (although I enjoyed reading them an' that), but for me the most apt comment on this whole case was in the critique after the Richard Dorment article: 'As if we needed reminding about the disgusting people prepared to abuse our children. It's porn.'

Not sure I care whether the moral majority or the radical feminists find an answer to this issue. Some things are just plain wrong.

Poor Brooke, I'm disgusted that any mother would allow photographs like that to be taken of their child. It is pornographic IMO, very sad for Brooke.

Whether or not it's porn, the fact that she doesn;t want semi naked pictures of her ten year old self paraded to the eyes of the eagerly frothing masses should be a good enough reason for them not to be.

And although I don't Do paedophobia, I cannot help thinking that this will go quite a long way towards fueling the fantasies of those people who prefer to think of ten year old little girls as sexually available objects of lust.

I see that picture, and I want to wash her.

Oh I wish I hadn't clicked on that link. Please don't tell me that is the photo in the Tate?

That photograph is appalling, but the Tate exhibit was meant to cause outrage at the pornification of children I think. Particularly because it is Brook Shields who we all know, not some unfortunate anonymous child molested by her uncle...

Meanwhile, there's still plenty of Playboy merchandise for little girls that some parents consider appropriate. Clearly it answers the age-old question "how to dress your daughter like a mini prostitute".

Yes, but this is not some unknown unfortunate girl whose uncle took pictures and then uploaded them to a paedophile's site. This is somebody we all know, who we've seen turn from child star to woman and therefore it's a lot more of a shock, it feels like we know her personally.

Also, this picture was clearly liked by her entourage 30 years ago, which also says something about what we deem acceptable and what not! What about today's beauty pageants with little girls parading around looking 10 years older, smiling alluringly for their delighted families?

Dittany, I honestly don't know if it should be there or not; personally it gave me things to think about and I do believe that's what art should do in the first place. I don't know if I care about paedophiles queing to see it, because then we should not let children swim or go around in nappies because somebody could get kicks out of it.
My issue is about her not wanting the picture shown, but then again the artist might be a cruel indifferent man who doesn't care about this woman's feelings. But, there's objectification of girls all around us, with thong bikinis and slutty dolls and nobody minds about the paedos for those.
The tricky thing about this picture is that it's not Prince who took it in the first place, so if I use your murder metaphor, he didn't do any killing. He reproduced a picture that in the first place was trying to turn a girl into a sexy woman. That is indeed social commentary no? Also, if the theme is art and money, then again it fits the bill: Brook Shield's mum made money from this picture, that's porn disguised as art, and also porn is all about using sex for money. So I find it an interesting piece of art, but still I don't know if it should be at the Tate...

So would it be okay for an artist to reproduce a photo of a murder being committed (snuff movies come to mind) and display it in an art gallery all to provoke discussion of the moral whys and wherefores?
How far can that argument be taken I wonder?

I repeat, 'As if we need reminding about the disgusting people who abuse our children. It's porn.'