Sexuality, nudity, pornograophy and morality
June 28, 2016 at 9:27 pm
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2016 at 9:32 pm by bennyboy.)
The "breasts aren't porn" thread just got shut down, presumably because I showed a variety of images of nude/non-nude art, asking how people would define them. I showed a picture of a statue with the god Pan fucking a goat. . . penis showing and all. And I showed a picture of some kids at the beach in their birthday suits, smiling for the camera.
Any guesses which one was "art" and which one got the thread closed?
I'm very disappointed that thread was closed, since I was really carefully choosing comments and images to get at the essence of what is/isn't acceptable nudity. I was pretty surprised how strongly one kind of nudity was supported, and others shut down. I'd like to carry on with the subject; it's interesting to me BECAUSE it seems so touchy.
My view is this: if you see a picture of a child in a non-sexual situation (like my kids playing naked in the sprinkler in August) and you call it porn, this is a perversion of nature-- just as it would be if you saw a breastfeeding mother as a sexual object. And to be honest, I wouldn't really have a problem with people viewing that picture, since I think it's perfectly innocent. Sure, some screwball out in the internet might jerk off to it. . . but the same goes for images of my dog's shit or of my toenail clippings.
It seems to me the perversion isn't in the naked kids or the breast-exposed nursing mothers, or in the public location or the existence of images-- it's in the minds who see nudity as a sexual scenario. In my opinion, there's real potential harm in this sexualization of non-sexual nudity: in almost all cases, oppression and repression lead to increases of violence and abuse. Muslim countries, for example, have a ridiculous record of rape. And I have to say I think America, with "Oh my God! That second picture showed a KID!" probably has a much worse problem with pedophilia than say Rome did, or more liberal countries like Canada or most European countries. I'm pretty sure if you had a dog-clothing requirement, that pervs all over the States would make dog-nudity sex clubs, and dogs would be found in shallow graves in the forest with signs of abuse, etc. etc.
I'm really curious on what basis people think nudity/sexuality SHOULD be viewed as obscence, and also where you think you got those views, whether you think they are reasonable, and whether you think the existence of those views in society will actually serve to protect the members of the society. And I'm ESPECIALLY interested to see if anyone is offended or mad at me or the images I posted in that other thread, and please tell me all about it.
Any guesses which one was "art" and which one got the thread closed?
I'm very disappointed that thread was closed, since I was really carefully choosing comments and images to get at the essence of what is/isn't acceptable nudity. I was pretty surprised how strongly one kind of nudity was supported, and others shut down. I'd like to carry on with the subject; it's interesting to me BECAUSE it seems so touchy.
My view is this: if you see a picture of a child in a non-sexual situation (like my kids playing naked in the sprinkler in August) and you call it porn, this is a perversion of nature-- just as it would be if you saw a breastfeeding mother as a sexual object. And to be honest, I wouldn't really have a problem with people viewing that picture, since I think it's perfectly innocent. Sure, some screwball out in the internet might jerk off to it. . . but the same goes for images of my dog's shit or of my toenail clippings.
It seems to me the perversion isn't in the naked kids or the breast-exposed nursing mothers, or in the public location or the existence of images-- it's in the minds who see nudity as a sexual scenario. In my opinion, there's real potential harm in this sexualization of non-sexual nudity: in almost all cases, oppression and repression lead to increases of violence and abuse. Muslim countries, for example, have a ridiculous record of rape. And I have to say I think America, with "Oh my God! That second picture showed a KID!" probably has a much worse problem with pedophilia than say Rome did, or more liberal countries like Canada or most European countries. I'm pretty sure if you had a dog-clothing requirement, that pervs all over the States would make dog-nudity sex clubs, and dogs would be found in shallow graves in the forest with signs of abuse, etc. etc.
I'm really curious on what basis people think nudity/sexuality SHOULD be viewed as obscence, and also where you think you got those views, whether you think they are reasonable, and whether you think the existence of those views in society will actually serve to protect the members of the society. And I'm ESPECIALLY interested to see if anyone is offended or mad at me or the images I posted in that other thread, and please tell me all about it.
