You're welcome; if it continues the way it's been going for the last page or so, I don't think we'll have much reason to shut it down. Fingers crossed; I'd personally rather see it continue.
Now, for a more personal note:
Without wanting to draw into doubt Mann's intentions in any way, and attempting to formulate as carefully as I can: I can imagine the concern people have with creating imagery and publishing it that depicts minors in a way that some people respond negatively (and strongly so) to, and/or that some people may abuse/misinterpret/mis-appropriate. The problem here is one of consent; pre-teens are generally considered to not be optimally capable of judging the effects of their decisions, and there's reasonable doubt as to the autonomy of those decisions in the first place. I can understand why the body of Mann's work that involves images of naked children is considered problematic. The children pictured will have to live with the consequences of choices that were arguably made in part for them, not so much by them.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where the best intentions of an artist like Mann would automatically create a safe space for her work to exist in. However, this is evidently not the case. In reality, people respond to it in numerous ways, including ways that are contrary to the intentions of the work or the people involved in making the work. This makes it a difficult topic - we can reasonably expect a person like Mann to be aware of this issue, and thus, the question arises whether it's justifiable to produce and publish such work. Without wanting to, or even being able to answer this question, I think the fact that it's asked, is reasonable.