I'm afraid I tend to lump most authorities on body language in with graphology and NLP. Open legs means X, one leg on the floor with the other crossed towards a stranger means Y, crossed away from a stranger means Z. Yes, body language fills in a lot of communication gaps, but its interpretation is an inexact science. Its a tool more noted in its absence ( as in the case of Aspies ) than in agreement about how to interpret the information it presents.

Well, you likely don't understand it very well. It's effects are documented and used in everything from police work to politics these days. Detectives have ditched the old good cop/bad cop routine in favor of an understanding of proxemics, chronemics and the like, because it is simply far more effective. I attended a conference at the Guillot University Center at UNA (which was my beat for my journalism class) in which detectives gave a detailed account of the new police style and how it differed dramatically from police shows. It isn't an exact science, true, but it's close enough for rock & roll, as it has developed quite a bit over millions of years and is every bit as important as speech. You should really read some good texts on nonverbal communication. It's too easy to dismiss it when you little about it.

Claims that "she says 'yes,' but her body says 'no,' " are just as bad as their reverse; particularly when we confuse the performance with the performer's mental state. Dakota Fanning was not raped in Hounddog. That's why they call it acting and pay her the big bux.

The performer is hired upon their ability to manipulate all language convincingly. Their job is to create a convincing simulation of a mindset they don't have. "Out of character" emotions are edited out of printed takes.

I'm glad you mention acting because it proves my point. Good actors are good not only because they can deliver lines but also because they can sell the body language; being decent at making people believe you as a character is at least as dependent on body language as your ability to repeat what you've read from a script. In fact, the prof of my History of Theatre I class said roughly 90% of acting is body language--the remaining 10% is line delivery and blocking, and you could even say that blocking is in itself an aspect of nonverbal communication.

Overgeneralized misinterpretation is common among students of body language. Mehrabian has to keep reminding those who quote his 80%+ nonverbal claim, that he was only talking about the nonverbal display of an emotion in the context of a discussion about the emotion.

And yet cops, businessmen, salesman, etc. study how to manipulate people through body language. They wouldn't waste their time if it was largely ineffective. And I was not referencing Mehrabian. It is a generally accepted number with a lot of different studies behind it that 80% or more of communication is nonverbal. For example, A. Barbour breaks down the percentages like this: 7% verbal, 38% vocal (paralanguage is still considered a form of nonverbal communication) and 55% body movements. That means Barbour estimates nonverbal communication at 93%. I think the 80% figure closer, but you could put it on a continuum, with anywhere from 50-80% communication being nonverbal in communications which involve a face-to-face encounters, less for more indirect types of encounters.

Privileging the unexpressed, "I can tell child exploitation when I see it," plays to the hands of the child suppressors. Our arguments that we are more sensitive to the "hidden language" of children is mirrored in their arguments that Peds only see what they want to see and are insensitive to the "hidden language" of children.

We already have a system governed by the "know it when they see it" standard. It is heavily stacked against the expressed desires and claims of minors. Note the futility of Olympia Papapetrou attempting to tell the child advocates that the exploitation they see isn't present. Not only are the Antis more sensitive to body language than the Nons, they are more sensitive to it than the child models is. Olympia might be deluded about consent, but her pictures tell the Antis that she didn't consent.

Well, whether it serves their interests or not wouldn't make it any less true. But let's be clear: I am not suggesting anyone should determine the exploitative status of a photograph or work of art based on body language. As I said, it is not a relevant gauge for the quality, import or validity of an artwork. Nothing I said was intended to imply to a system, but only to artists who might be inclined to exploit children for their own work. We should understand body language, which is relevant to the issue of consent. Were you not the one who agreed with me that verbal consent isn't explicitly required for sexual consent to take place and not be considered rape? Or do you suppose we should disregard the girl's smile, ease and opening herself up to us as unreliable, since body language isn't an exact science? Easy to accept such considerations when in service of your needs, but otherwise unreliable or irrelevant when considering the possibility of harm?

Not to sound like a broken record, but Eva's vacant expression is that of Bill Henson's model. Or, I should say, that the expression in the artwork of Irina Ionesco is no different than that in the work of Bill Henson. And I have no clue about what transpired in the making of these images aside from what the artists and subjects are willing to claim about them.

Of course its easier when everyone agrees about the experience as a positive one. But our ethics must also address when parties disagree; both at the time, and much later. This can best be addressed by listening to what the children have to say, and not allowing it to be overwritten by what their performances as artistic collaborators in another's script might lead us to believe their characters want.

We have been confusing the character and the actor for far too long. Its the goal of art that the actor becomes invisible within the character. But I would hope that ethical considerations protecting the interests of those involved concern only the nonfictional persons.

As I recall, there are subtle but important differences between Ionesco's work and Henson's. I'm at a disadvantage here because it has been quite a few years since I've seen Ionesco's photos, but I recall even then sensing Eva's discomfort and shyness. Henson's models are also older than Eva was when she began modeling for her mother.

Of course its easier when everyone agrees about the experience as a positive one. But our ethics must also address when parties disagree; both at the time, and much later. This can best be addressed by listening to what the children have to say, and not allowing it to be overwritten by what their performances as artistic collaborators in another's script might lead us to believe their characters want.

We have been confusing the character and the actor for far too long. Its the goal of art that the actor becomes invisible within the character. But I would hope that ethical considerations protecting the interests of those involved concern only the nonfictional persons.

But why do you suppose that good child actors are so rare? Do you think it any less true of "actors" in photographs? Indeed, photography is something almost every child on the planet is familiar with and has experienced, and it is such a part of everyday life that children are quite frequently off their guard. That is especially so--or should be--with photographs taken by parents. But I got the impression from Ionesco's photos that the child was not at all happy in many instances. Granted, it is subtle and my take could be wrong, but like I said my opinion was not formed wholly after Eva's confession of being exploited. That impression has lingered with me for awhile. I don't claim the images aren't beautiful; some of them were quite impressive, Eva was certainly a lovely young girl. And now we have evidence in the form of Eva's testimony that she was exploited, which I consider the most important factor here. It could be she's lying or remembers things incorrectly, and that can pose a setback. But I don't think so.