If you don't have artistic freedom...

'You make it sound like there can't be much in between, and if people think it's either one or the other, either aesthetic pleasure or molestation, then undue negative reactions towards non-coercive, consensual sexual activity will likely result. I'm not advocating for sex with minors here, I'm talking about accurate judgments, and how nuances and distinctions between coercive and consensual help in that regard. Using accurate terms and requiring such use from others will be more useful, I think, than using a new name.'

In terms of the law it makes no make difference, all lead to jail. Nudity, molestation, anything. There is virtually no context anymore where there is any exception to this.

However, I believe there is an important distinction to make culturally. Sensuality in the context of creativity and aesthetics were only deemed criminal in relatively recent history. There were some celebrated court cases of artists such as Egon Schielle offending public morals with their work. More recently photographers such as Nan Goldin and Robert Mapplethorpe became the subject of police interest.

I believe art and sensuality should not be criminalised. To my mind this is a very important frontier or meaningful emancipation, because if you don't have artistic freedom, then you have no freedom as a society.

What sometimes gets to me, is when the bastards try to falsely imply things from a creative work. It can be painting, poetry, or music.. This is the source of persecution and witch-hunts. Historically, great artists always produced work in defiance of the status quo - it was true of Klimt it was true of Bacon it was true of Larkin. But the heresy-hunters can have a stifling and inhibiting effect in the wider culture and population, and shut down art altogether.

As I see it, this is the kind of area where the real battle lies currently.