(August 5, 2017 at 1:40 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I shouldn't have to say this, but when it comes to the private parts of someone's body, it is immoral to look at them without that person's consent and against that person's will. If you can't see the difference between that and seeing a photo of someone clothed in their backyard while walking through a checkout line, I don't know what to tell you.
And now we're down to the heart of the matter. Its about the parts of the body that most moms taught their daughters to be ashamed of. Perhaps that's the difference between us. I don't have many hangups about nudity. I think it should be private or relatively so, but that's a personal choice and not one I would want forced on others.
So for me, the nudity doesn't change anything. To me, both nude photos and those photos taken without the knowledge of the subject while the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy are exactly the same. The fact that the subject is nude in one but not the other does not make it any more or less an invasion of privacy. At all. Exact same crime in both cases for me. Exact same level of inappropriate for me. So if one is immoral and unacceptable, then so is the other. The nudity doesn't change anything one bit for me because it became wrong the moment the photos were private and therefore there is no need to go beyond that and into the content of the photos themselves. If I have to have a moral problem with one, I have to have the same moral problem with the other. And honestly I just don't. I think there are way more important topics to apply the yardstick of morality to and frankly this one ultimately just doesn't matter all that much in the grand scheme.
