I see nothing wrong with naked children - in real life or in photographs. I remember when it was commonplace for children to run round naked on the beach or in parks. No-one turned a hair. In fact, mothers approved bacause it meant at least one less nappy to wash, and the kids were happy not to have wet terries round their middle chaffing them whenever they moved.

Frequently those children would be photgraphed, and the "holiday snaps" would be shown to anyone willing to look. They saw nothing but kids enjoying themselves.

It has always been thus. Always, that is, until recently, when any stranger - especially male strangers - became the object of suspicion and fear. People began to believe the worst of everyone else, and to justify their paranoia, they repeated frequently distorted stories to each other about macarbe and vicious mistreatment of children. The more they talked about it, the more they believed it. Now they have lost the ability to trust people, and because of that, they have abandoned a standard of behaviour that has governed society for millenia. Nowadays, depravity is expected: maybe that's why we get it. It is, in fact, very rare, but the perception is that the next man on the street is on the prowl to whip up your kiddies and defile them. And the children are learning to be afraid.

So, I have to insist that not all catholic priests are paedophiles - some protestant ministers, some republican politicians, some Texan cowboys, some British aristocrats are also paedophiles. BUT IN EVERY CASE, NEARLY ALL OF THEM ARE NOT. And, frankly, I don't think there is very much anyone can do about those that are.

Now, as for art, it has been said that art is pretty much what you want it to be: a pile of bricks, a dead sheep; a portrait of a nude woman, a landscape: paintings of sailing ships battling at sea, soldiers killing each other at Ticonderoga. Photographs of pretty Victorian children at play, showing their petticoats and ribbons - photgraphs of lithe boys swimming naked in the river. Japanese manga. Some of these might not be high art. Some of them might even be in questionable taste. But if they portray children - clothed or unclothed - it doesn't make them bad for that reason alone.

Photograpers frequently show studies of men and women. Usually they are naked for at least some of the pictures. Generally, it is acknowledged that they are artful. It would be extremely cynical to brand it all as for the benefit of dirty old men who never had a girlfriend (... OK - I admit I do like looking at them ...)

Photographers also frequently produce studies of children. What is it that makes a picture of a nude girl on her 18th birthday artful but, had it been taken 24 hours earlier, kiddie porn? Why are big appealing eyes pornographic?

I have mentioned in anaother thread that my uncle photographed my sister when she was about 5, standing naked in a tin tub. In fact he took several photographs, most of which were full frontal and full body. My parents were not at all alarmed. In fact he had been recording my sister's reaction to the fact that the tub had sprung a leak and she was wondering were the water was going.

I KNOW my uncle did not take them for salacious reasons. I have very strong reasons to believe he never took those pictures into the bathroom to toss himself off over them. He took them to "tell a story".

Did my sister have her dignity taken away from her? Tosh if you think so! No more than my having my dignity stripped when I was made to act the role of a woman in the school play, and wear a dress and make-up (it was an all boys school). Just part of life's ups and downs.

But if he did have a wank over them, surely that's better than abusing my sister instead, isn't it? I'd rather pervs had access to as much printed porn as they can deal with if it helps them control their urges to abuse real children. Does it lead them on to do "other" things - to become abusers? I doubt it - not by themselves. Such people will become abusers anyway.

Meanwhile, is it art or not? It could be. What evidence is there that it is not?