Seems the debate has missed a most salient point. The pictures of this little girl are soft-core pornography. Forget the one on the cover. The ones inside are with her naked, wearing jewelery and lipstick, with her back arched and legs crossed in a suggestive manner
Claerly titillation guised as art
And the clown (indeed dressed as and acting like one) of a father is already condemned by his own written word. On recent clips he's making all the "right" noises about how its "art" and nothing licentious, titillating or sexual in it.
Unfortunately he has just been outed as habving written an essay a while back saying EXACTLY the opposite. For mine hes as sus looking as they come and something stinks.
