|
| Thread: Nudity exposed xxx |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 31, 2004 04:50 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 15 Apr 2004
|
Nudity exposed xxx
How can a picture as beautiful as this one (if it’s still here) be considered vulgar and shameful? How can it offend someone? How can it be DELETED by someone? (is it yet?) If I am to get criticized for posting this pic, so be it. But I have a point to make.
They say no nude pictures may be sent to this forum. Why? In order to “protect” younger members form the “harmful” and “immoral” content of these magnificent works of art. Completely wrong perception of things, if you ask me. But first, let me clear things up, I’m not talking about porn here (although personally I can’t see any difference), but true art. It’s the same kind of art as during the Renaissance and the Classical Greek Art, which by chance, are considered by some scholars to be the peak of the Western Art.
How old should one be, in order to get familiar with their own body, their own kind, their natural look, the way it was meant to be, if it hadn’t been for the human “advanced” civilization. Can somebody answer this question: Why is nudity considered immoral and what kind of “wrong” behavior may it cause?
I have no answer. I find the human body to be an endless source of inspiration for all artists, has always been, and always will be. It is very natural for the human body to be perceived as the highest form of spiritual and artistic aesthetics, since after all, we are humans and it is sexuality in our nature that constitutes a huge part of what we are. In my opinion, only if you accept sexuality and nudity as an important part of your personality, can you become a fully self-realized being.
Therefore, as much as I try, I can’t understand when somebody feels offended by nudity. This is totally irrational for me. How can a pair of t!ts be so scary to someone when half of the world population has them?
This paranoia is especially present in the USA, and at the same time, that’s the place where commercialization of sex and nudity are the most wide-spread and most accepted probably.
Take the recent “nipple-parade” by Jenet’s right boob for example. Big deal, I’d say. If it had happened here, everybody would just laugh about it and that’s it. But in USA, I hear stuff about “delaying the TV signal in order to prevent unwanted incidents”, legal accusations etc.
For comparison, take European movies, and you’ll see there’s much more nudity, but it is solely in the service of art. That’s why, imho, they are ten times better than Hollywood junk, not because of nudity, but because of true art and the human sexuality as its eternal and most heavenly source of inspiration.
Porn, on the other hand, is not a form of art, but it is the human manifestation of sexuality, I would say. I’m also in favor of removing the age limit for viewing porn, but I know a lot of people will kill me for this one. Illegal or not, porn is still watched by many boys in puberty. I know I watched it (and still do rarely  ), and it helped me and my peers in getting to know our sexuality. Hell, can you imagine your first sexual experience without any idea about what sex actually is? And it’s the only way (and most effective way too  ), because society clearly mystifies the subject without any reason.
I find this “self-censoring” to have roots in the firm grasp of Christianity over Western society in the past, but its consequences are present to this day (unfortunately). I think it’s a grave mistake to slap a 3-year-old if he is touching his sex organs. We teach our kids how not to explore their sexuality, that seeing a naked person is a fearful and shameful thing, and this can have a profound negative influence in the child’s upbringing. It can even influence his adult life through his subconsciousness. Instead, I believe that we should be completely open for sexuality and try to help our kids develop a healthy attitude towards it.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted March 31, 2004 05:12 PM |
|
|
Read FAQ quick. Code of conduct.
About the pic
What a nice devil he loves?
(be it devil or whatever.. basicly a being.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted March 31, 2004 05:18 PM |
|
|
An incubus at work. Big deal.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 31, 2004 05:22 PM |
|
|
Hey, Woocky boy (and all of you other would-be "spammers")!
Not the pic, dear, the text!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
madmartigan
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
who will never walk alone
|
|
posted March 31, 2004 06:03 PM |
|
|
Why are you so surprised?
Some of the peeps in here are simply making rehearsals for their auditions for the lead roles in the movie "The Dumb and the Dumberer Part III"
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted March 31, 2004 08:17 PM |
|
|
Svarog: You're right; the fuss about nudity is a cultural thing, particularly in the US. Same goes for the connection between nudity and sex. However, that does not invalidate people's resistance. See Pandora's argument here regarding youth. Youth isn't only the only concern, incidently. Sexually charged images can be disturbing to others as well, for a variety of reasons (i.e. a history of sexual abuse). A bulletin board dedicated to an E rated video game should be a safe zone. Whether or not you agree with people's opinions and offenses at nudity, confronting them with it unexpectedly is questionable behavior. That's the path to emotional fights, not productive debates. Irritating and illogical as cultural quirks may be, people tend to grant them a great deal of emotional investment.
The "It's not porn; it's art!" argument is nonsense because porn is a type of art. Vesuvius can probably tell you more about the technical side of creating beautiful photos, and drawing is an art regardless of subject. Your picture and the troublesome naga picture are on the line of qualifying as soft-core porn. Since that line is pretty blurry, I think Kitten's solution of allowing the pic to be linked but not posted was ideal. That way, people can access and enjoy the pics at their own discretion.
I agree with you that the Puritan attitude towards nudity is pretty silly and could use relaxing. On the other hand, pressing the case too hard can backfire badly. A blurry-line piece of art, like the nagas, may get people talking. An explicit piece will draw immediate revulsion and confirm people's pre-judgements. This isn't a logic thing. People cannot help how they have been socially programmed.
Sex and nudity aside, there are also issues of exploitation and objectification that go hand-in-hand with porn (and prostitution). Gender plays into it, too: notice that both pictures feature unclothed women.
Finally, I personally find the picture above pretty disturbing, Svarog, for exactly the violence reasons you cite in the naga thread. The demon is clawing the woman's backside hard enough to draw blood. To me, the combination of sex and violence is far more disturbing than either alone.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Angelspit
Famous Hero
Warrior of the Heavens
|
posted March 31, 2004 08:25 PM |
|
|
Very good explanation, Khaelo. Thank you.
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 31, 2004 08:37 PM |
|
|
Though i had to take a look in my dictionary very often (), i like your explanation very much Khaelo.
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted March 31, 2004 11:51 PM |
|
|
bah..got me hopes up when i saw the topic.. than it just included a toss debate...what a disappointment
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted April 01, 2004 02:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sexually charged images can be disturbing to others as well, for a variety of reasons (i.e. a history of sexual abuse).
Whether or not someone has mental problems is really not my concern. No offence meant. Someone may get disturbed by cars, if they had a car crash.
But what I’m trying to do here is to open the issue of human sexuality and discuss why people find it disturbing itself. On this concrete example, all I can say is that I think the reason some people are sexually abusive in the first place is the unhealthy attitude towards their own sexuality, precisely because society treats it in such a mystifying and immoral manner.
Quote:
A bulletin board dedicated to an E rated video game should be a safe zone. Whether or not you agree with people's opinions and offenses at nudity, confronting them with it unexpectedly is questionable behavior. That's the path to emotional fights, not productive debates.
This isn't a logic thing. People cannot help how they have been socially programmed.
You sound like I started spammin HC with HC-porn or something. All I want is to speak about it. If someone is offended by the discussion itself (and I never give any personal offences, u know that), I don’t care. If someone gets disturbed when confronted with sexuality, I think they have a very serious problem. After all, I too, am a person with an opinion and a different “social program” and have the full right to state it, without anyone feeling offended about it. And I see a huge potential in this thread to develop in a productive debate, just because there hasn’t been anything similar here before (sex is still a taboo!), and human sexuality is such an important subject to talk about.
Quote:
The "It's not porn; it's art!" argument is nonsense because porn is a type of art.
You are right. Correction - porn has a lesser artistical value.
And it wasn’t an argument at all. Didn’t you notice that I said I couldn’t see any difference? I just made a distinction in relation to the often harmful influence porn has on younger children, precisely because of the reasons you name in the latter part of your letter. But porn’s not always harmful, and nudity in “quality art” (the one I was talking about) is never harmful to children. On the contrary, imo, it positively stimulates their mental development.
Quote:
Since that line is pretty blurry, I think Kitten's solution of allowing the pic to be linked but not posted was ideal. That way, people can access and enjoy the pics at their own discretion.
I know why she did it (to protect the kids around), but my mind won’t let me understand that. Why don’t they provide links for the pictures with dragons, explosions, weapons? Why specifically nudity? I can’t see a difference between these. I know some people don’t like looking at nude bodies, but imo the fear is unjustified.
Quote:
Sex and nudity aside, there are also issues of exploitation and objectification that go hand-in-hand with porn (and prostitution). Gender plays into it, too: notice that both pictures feature unclothed women.
Would it mean to you if I had put David, Adam or a couple making love instead? You are hitting at the tail of the problem all the time. I absolutely agree with you about the objectification of women in some porn movies. That’s why I distinguished those two. And you can be damn sure I’m a staunch opponent of all attempts of women subjugation, objectification, humiliation etc.
Quote:
The demon is clawing the woman's backside hard enough to draw blood. To me, the combination of sex and violence is far more disturbing than either alone.
Oh, come on. I barely even noticed that drop of blood. And I can’t agree this pic has violence depicted. If you and others feel so, note that it wasn’t my intention at all. The pic is just for decoration.
Khaelo, I appreciate your opinion, but I think you addressed all questions, but the central one. The picture, porn, HC’s Code of Conduct, that naga’s thread are not the points of these thread. Your statement that threads like this won’t lead to productive debates, to me only confirms the paranoic attitude people have towards sexuality and nudity. Read the first post once more, and notice the questions that have not been answered, and are crucial for our self-being.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted April 01, 2004 03:45 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 1 Apr 2004
|
Your central question, as I understand it, is "Why?" people are offended by explicit depictions of sex. I thought I did address that: Culture, particularly mainstream US culture, deems these things offensive. Why? Who knows? There are historical reasons, but explaining that stuff doesn't explain modern individuals' reactions. It doesn't explain why some people today get tied in knots over an exposed nipple. Basically, there isn't a logical explaination, aside from that's how they've come to see the world. Taking offense is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. You don't understand how these things are offensive. Others don't understand how these things are not offensive.
Quote:
Whether or not someone has mental problems is really not my concern.
Traumatic experience was an example, not the core of my argument. See below.
(I disagree about the origins of sexual abuse, by the way. I think most sexual abuse has little to do with sex and lots to do with power. Because of its nature, its effects happen to spill over into sexual issues for the victims. Also, abuse was only an example of why people get upset by sexual images in unexpected places.)
Quote:
All I want is to speak about it. If someone is offended by the discussion itself (and I never give any personal offences, u know that), I don’t care.
Nobody's objected to speaking about it, or to discussion.
Quote:
If someone gets disturbed when confronted with sexuality, I think they have a very serious problem.
Maybe. More likely, however, they are simply reacting as they have been socialized. Perhaps that indicates a problem with the workings of society, but it's not a "problem" on the part of individuals caught up in those larger trends. I think diplomacy is needed when addressing these issues, because people can't always separate logic from emotion, their own opinions from society's teachings, criticism of their society from criticism of themselves, and so on.
Violence hasn't been stigmatized to the same degree sex has. It makes no sense, but it's the way (American) culture has developed.
By the way, I think the perception of nudity is gradually changing in American society today. For every person screaming to the skies about the corrupting influence of Janet's breast, there are several others laughing it off and mocking the lawsuits.
Quote:
Correction - porn has a lesser artistical value.
Interesting. Why?
By nudity in "quality art," what are you referring to? Nudity in non-sexual settings? How does this help children's minds develop? Right now, such nudity is restricted to old and neo-classical work -- if someone is portrayed in marble or has misplaced their toga, they're not really naked. The inevitable field trips to the art museum just re-enforce these norms for kids. They don't get the kids thinking about their own bodies or the role of nudity in their own lives.
On a lighter and slightly more personal note: If you didn't want people to talk about that image, why did you post it? It seems to have distracted people from the issues you want to address. When you paraphrase me saying, "threads like this won’t lead to productive debates," you've misinterpreted my words. I said that confrontation won't lead to productive debates. Your text isn't confrontational, nor is the tone of the thread. It's that picture which throws things off -- however good your intentions in posting it, it can be easily seen as "Here's nudity! Deal!" It was this potential issue that was in my mind when I referred to confronting people. Sorry if it came off too strongly. 
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Valick_Blood
Adventuring Hero
Dude of Darkness
|
|
posted April 01, 2004 04:34 AM |
|
|
I ARGUE THAT THE DUDE WITH THE TITAN AVATAR SHOULD GET A RED STAR!
...
Sorry, sudden burst of opinion...
I am an atheist, not believing in God (as you should know...). I live in Western Oklahoma, home of the crazed Puritian lifestyles and beliefs, so I seem to observe more of these crazy Christian fanatic's attitudes towards subjects such as sex, nudity, Judaism, Paganism, or even atheism. I know what this talk of overdefencive protection over nudity is all about. It just blows my mind how you I can think of a dog, running amongst the streets, trotting his happy arse down the roads, then, lets say this dog was completely shaved, revealing everything which is under his pelt. Many people will look at the dog for a second and think of it as an odd sight, but not worry that this dog is running around in public IN THE NUDE. Try the same with a human...see your results...
Yes, my comparison of dogs and humans in the nude doesn't seem to hold water, but just because we are intelligent and find the invention of clothing, we MUST, at all/near all times, wear this new invention due to people's concerns about toddlers thoughts upon what is underneath a panty/boxer, while animals run around in their NATURAL state? Why is it that we are so afraid of our own NATURAL state? Why must we hide any pictures of nudity when a older person walks into your bedroom, even without the thought of masturbation on your mind (and even sometimes hands)? Hell, why is it that when we even speak about a penis or breast that we get laughed at or even snapped at by saying, 'Have you no shame?!" We laugh when someone says penis or vagina or when a person calls someone a "fag"?
Another point, I was first taught by my mother and father at the age of...4 (I'll say four because thats when I can start remembering and actually begin to speak and listen) that breasts or penises (they never did say vaginas. Kinda hard concept to withhold...) were nothing to be afraid of, or even be shy of. The only thing that I needed to do when it was in public was not to yell out anything about a d!ck or a boob, for other people would ridicule not me, but my parents. They didn't care if I did, but other people did, so I learned when and where to talk about sex/nudity. Even before this was taught to me, I was allowed to look at breasts on the TV on movies before I can even attempt to remember! My parents were cool.
But, back to the point, nudity, especially artistic type (pornography with taste can even be called art), should be accepted by people, yet it won't until these damn Chiristian bible thumpers learn these facts.
With this, my point has been stated and hopefully even made, so, later.
†Valick the Vile†
____________
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted April 01, 2004 09:06 AM |
|
|
I have a little problem with all these concerns about nude pictures (in this case, there is not a nude picture showing, at least i do not see one ). The big difference exists not only between artwork like this, witch should be mainly interpreted as a "drawing", as art in it's purest form, and pics with women (or men) naked. I also find a difference between, let's say, the pictures from Playboy, witch are also to be considered artworks (the female body is, under my opinion, one of the most beautiful creations of nature, except for beer, of course) and the low-morale class pictures of hard porn that can be found on the internet.
Also, sooner or later every one will get contact with things like this, and by trying to stop it from happening will only make things worse. Let me tell you a little about these things here in Romania. At fourteen years old, almost every girl has already lost her virginity, and that not because of any abuse whatsoever, but because of free will and the desire to make new experiments. Here, to that generation (of 14 – 15 years), this thing is considered normal. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but hey, you should see how they look (both males and females) at that age. So stopping picture posting in this manner will never be a good, valid moral gesture, since the internet is so full of them. Ok, hard porn – that I agree, but artworks like this one (by the Way, Svarog, I have all those fantasy pics on my computer, they rule) should be considered beautiful and meaningful.
Oh, yeah, forgot one thing, if you forbid posting the picture of a beautiful woman naked, then you should forbid posting a picture of a little baby naked, it still is nude and offensive and the fact that the womans breasts have already developed doesn’t mean it is more vulgar. See my point?
____________
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted April 01, 2004 10:17 AM |
|
|
I still don't get why everybody is paying so much attention tho sex. Humans perform two main activities to live, survive and perpetuate, and those are feeding and having sex. Yet, people would rather talkabout a good cook book than, let us say, laetitia casta's sex appeal
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted April 01, 2004 05:45 PM |
|
|
oi! Off Topicness?
Clarification edit removed from my last post. When writing the "lighter note," I did not think the demon painting should be removed from this thread. In light of subsequent posts, however, my opinion has changed. The demon painting is apparently worthy of a discussion on its own. I know I have more to say about it in response to both Svarog and Consis. On the other hand, since the picture was posted only as a "decoration," talking about its specifics distracts from the discussion Svarog wished to start with this thread. IMHO, it might help this thread stay on track if the demon pic were to be placed in its own thread. If that's too much trouble, I'll just separate my demon commentary from issue debates.
The trucker-babe icon might have been a bit less controversial. The beauty of hindsight... (or is that the sight of beautiful 'hinds?!?)
[/off topic]
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 01, 2004 07:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I disagree about the origins of sexual abuse, by the way. I think most sexual abuse has little to do with sex and lots to do with power. Because of its nature, its effects happen to spill over into sexual issues for the victims. Also, abuse was only an example of why people get upset by sexual images in unexpected places.
(Luckily) I don’t have lot knowledge about what really causes sexual abuse. But one thing I know – it definitely has something to do with unhealthy attitude towards sexuality, and that is, imo very often also connected to the society’s perception of it.
Quote:
Perhaps that indicates a problem with the workings of society, but it's not a "problem" on the part of individuals caught up in those larger trends.
Yes, but I believe it is an individual’s “mission” to break free of the society’s norms and pre-set patterns of behavior, if they are not the same with his internal feelings. The “fight” must continue until one comes to the point where they will identify themselves with the individual that they are primarily, and only later as members of society in every aspect of life. Therefore, it is a problem of the individual, cause you mustn’t avoid responsibility for your actions.
Quote:
[Porn has a lesser artistical value.] Interesting. Why?
By nudity in "quality art," what are you referring to? Nudity in non-sexual settings? How does this help children's minds develop?
This is completely a personal view (about porn and “quality” art). Porn is of lesser value than “true” art, since it causes feelings about person’s instincts, which are of lesser value than deep spiritual emotions (such as love, freedom, sorrow). The “art of porn” works much in the same way as depictions of food if you’re hungry.
When I mention “quality” art, I don’t mean only about nudity in non-sexual settings, but also about every aspect of nudity and sex that doesn’t influence harmfully on children (we already mentioned those). And it’s not only classical works, but also many modern alternative arts (poetry, photography, cinema…) Most of these are forbidden for 18-, or for regular TV broadcasts. (???!!!) And they not only cause sexual arousal, but a whole specter of emotions and spiritual states, connected to the body eros and appeal, connected in turn to the very essence of self.
Why I think it helps children in their up-bringing? Because it confronts them with their own sexuality in earliest years, represents it as something completely normal and natural, and it wouldn’t make them “moral freaks” when they grow up.
Quote:
It's that picture which throws things off -- however good your intentions in posting it, it can be easily seen as "Here's nudity! Deal!" It was this potential issue that was in my mind when I referred to confronting people. Sorry if it came off too strongly.
Well, one of the intentions in posting the pic, was to provoke people in stating their opinion. (I’m not that innocent, after all .)
And sorry you too, because I misunderstood you. *hugs*
Valick’s parents were indeed cool to have had such an approach while he was still a kid, but that’s a rare case nowadays.
I have a friend (not the bestest buddy, but…), I met in highschool, whose parents were not that open-minded about sex. He watched his first porn when he was 16 (!), hasn’t had a girlfriend so far (!!) and acts in a feminine way a bit. His father’s a doctor and tried to tell him about the “scientific” process of sex, but he never developed his sexuality in a healthy way. When we met, he would chuckle each time I mentioned a “dirty” word or talked about sex (and I do that a lot ). He has undergone a revelation since we met (aren’t I influencive?), and he has a more “natural” view of sexuality now. I blame society for the snow that happened to my friend, and many more like him. Hell, my parents were not very liberal too, but I somehow, managed to find my way through.
Now, about the example doom made. Indeed, what’s the difference between a naked baby and a nude woman? Why the first is considered cute, and the second vulgar. I think, it’s the feeling caused by scenes of nude bodies and sex, the beautiful feeling of arousal and desire, which is considered “wrong, sinful and dirty” by society. That’s why some boys feel guilt while masturbating, very few girls do it, people giggle when “sex” is mentioned. It is sinful to them. I will ask you then, is pleasure sinful? I disgust when I see parents disgusted by scenes of nudity or sex, and cover their kids’ eyes in order not to see. Again, the grasp of Christianity (or Islam, whatever) over our actions comes into play, but not of the true Christianity, but the one that is twisted 180 degrees form centuries of practicing it.
Quote:
I personally find this to be of repugnant nature. My feelings about sex, pleasure, attraction, and arousal don't include either the woman or the man bleeding; or any blood present at all. It's sad too, because I love demonic art and I love sensual naked women but I don't spend more than glimpse if I see blood involved in a painting or sculpture that also includes sexual overtones.
Consis, you’re saying that sex and blood don’t mix, right? But you see, this pic’s intention wasn’t to arouse sexual desires only. That’s the purpose of porn.
Like any art, it was supposed to cause emotions of various kind. Some art has a depressive feel, but it’s still art. Although for some people, it may cause sexual desires. Pretty much in the same way as for some people socks do it. Lol!
And, I find it odd you cannot associate blood and sex. Not even virgin blood? 
To me, they are both personifications of carnal desire, indulgence and passion. Though I agree a human bleeding is a “sick” association with sex. But this pic is far form it, I tell you.
Quote:
I believe sexuality should only be for the mature person. When I say mature person I define the word "mature" as being physically and mentally capable. Age and state of mind determine the level of maturity. I believe only the maturity of an adult should allow a person to either perform, view, or discuss sexual activities, behaviors, anatomy, etc.
Children too have sexuality ever since their early years. Though they don’t sense it the same way we do, that’s when it’s formed actually and that period is, I think, far more important than sexual experiences as adults. (Ever heard something about Freud’s views on this matter?) I’m not suggesting that children want to have sex, but they do something similar in a very subtle way.
Would you consider those 14-year-old Romanian girls mature? They are physically developed, their hormones are raging, so why not have sex? It’s the way nature wanted us to be.
Quote:
All sexual content carries with it a responsibility. To ignore this responsibility is to ignore the importance of the life which is created from said acts.
Yes, it carries a responsibility, but a responsibility to treat it with respect and not to stigmatize it. Instead hiding sexuality, glorify it. That way you’re also glorifying the act of creating life and the sudden burst of love or desire.
Viva el sexo!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2004 07:34 PM |
|
|
In modern society you can find anything anywhere.How many
people suposedly too young to see those pictures immediately
followed that link and actually saw it.I`d say every single one of them.
I don`t think there were too many parents around to prevent that.
No matter how hard you try kids will get in contact with
nudity ,vulgarity and to lesser extent violence at very
early age.Point is to prepare them for it and not to let them interpret it the wrong way.
What really pisses me of is that someone who is legally forbidden(without parents,which is same as forbiden period) to see a movie because they could see pair of breasts, or forbiden to play a game because a character in it is bisexual (not main character) will masturbate with hard-core porn they easily obtained when they are 12, and
few years later will have sex say when they are 15-16
and they will still be forbiden to see two nipples on
screen, which very well may be in purpose of art .
That is possibly the longest sentense I`ve ever written
i hope it made sense.
BTW Until Khaelo mentioned it ,I hadn`t even seen that drop of blood.
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
|
posted April 01, 2004 08:07 PM |
|
|
Just another perspective - current Politics
My worry is what is happening here in the US. We seem to be going back to the 'dark ages' with this current republican government. When you see Attorney General Ashcroft cover statues and freak over an exposed nipple, when you see state laws forming that will deem exposing your breast for the camera (even in the privacy of your own home) as obscenity, when a comic book store is shut down because some of its comics involve nudity.... I can go on and on... but if this Repub. gov't stays in power the next four years, and they decide to finally tackle 'domestic issues, I fear for our freedoms.
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted April 02, 2004 01:12 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 1 Apr 2004
|
Svarog:
Quote:
[sexual abuse] definitely has something to do with unhealthy attitude towards sexuality
I agree. Luckily, I have no personal experience in this area either, but from what I have heard, abuse often connects sex with power. That is certainly an unhealthy attitude. I also agree that attitudes about sexuality should be more liberal. To use your previous analogy, someone who has a traumatic experience with cars may initially be afraid of cars but usually they recover. Cars are normal in society, people are constantly exposed to cars, so it is harder for cars to be permanently tied to a single trauma. If sex were similarly normalized, it would be easier for (single occurance) victims to separate their particular trauma from the general experience of sex.
However, I don't understand how liberalizing attitudes about sex will decrease the occurance of abuse in the first place. Abusers want power over victims, and some of them use sex to get it.
Quote:
Yes, but I believe it is an individual’s “mission” to break free of the society’s norms and pre-set patterns of behavior, if they are not the same with his internal feelings. The “fight” must continue until one comes to the point where they will identify themselves with the individual that they are primarily, and only later as members of society in every aspect of life.
1) Most people's "mission" is to just live their lives. Breaking free is a nuisance they don't want to bother with.
2) Very often, individuals' internal feelings are society's norms and pre-set patterns. In fact, I'd say that most people feel this way, and that is how society keeps its norms going. Why should people try to break free of what they see as normal and good?
3) Identifying as an individual first and a community member second is a very particular worldview. I happen to agree with it, but there are entire cultures which would deem this statement absolutely nuts.
That's why I think the liberalization of sexuality has to be accomplished in a gradual fashion. Societies move more slowly than individuals. Discussion like this one get individuals thinking, and eventually ideas filter into society as a whole. The discussion of liberalizing sexuality started (in the States) in the 19th century, picked up in the 1960's/70's, and continues on today. Europe has a more liberalized view of sex than the US; many Middle Eastern countries have a more conservative view (and in some cases, getting more so). *shrug* It's the way things go.
As to porn and art: a personal distinction. Myself, I don't think of entire categories as lesser art but rather make judgements based on particular pieces. A really well-done commercial is quality art, while a dull, mediocre painting is not, IMHO. Maybe most porn isn't good art -- most commercials certainly aren't. For me, that doesn't exclude the possibility that a piece of porn or an ad could be great art. If it both accomplishes and transcends its utilitarian purpose, it qualifies as quality art no matter what the original purpose was. Just my two cents...
Ancient and neo-classical nudity is permitted to children; modern alternative nudity is not. Of course this makes no sense, but society is the biggest committee possible, so that's no surprise (). In order to change that, you need to change the view of parents, who are part of society, which means influencing society, etc. If you start trying to second-guess parents by exposing their children to material which they find objectionable for whatever reason, you're going to get in trouble. See the debate about creationism vs. evolution in US schools. IMO, one side is clearly wrong, but they think they're right. In a democratic society, both sides get their say. In the US, parents also have the option of pulling their kids out of the school system completely and home-schooling. I think teaching creationism does a grave disservice to the children, but can we morally stop the parents from doing so? I don't believe so, and I similarly don't believe we can or should force liberalized sexuality upon children who are being raised to a different standard. We can nail 'em when they're adults. 
By the way, Christianity is a pretty diverse religion. It has been since the beginning. There are very few things every variety of Christianity agrees upon, and sexuality is certainly not one of them. Best of luck determining the true Christianity, too. The Gospels are the best we've got, and even they're not Jesus' writings. (I'm taking an Origins of Christianity class right now, so I'll cut off the detail now before it gets overwhelming. )
About the horny 14-year-olds...children want a lot of things before they're ready for them. Even if they are physically mature, are they emotionally ready and prepared for the consequences of sex? I don't know when Romanian culture determines a person to be an adult, but I suspect it's not as early as 14. Several ancient cultures prepared girls for marriage and child-bearing at 14; most modern cultures do not.
Demon Pic:
First, just to clarify, I find the picture disturbing and somewhat repulsive, not offensive.
Second, the first thing to strike me about that image was the threatening atmosphere. I only noticed the specifics -- blood, the entrapment of the woman's ankle, the demon's possessive hold -- after examining the picture more closely. To me, sexual violence is implied. If others don't see that, fine.
Third, despite the demon's malicious air, the woman doesn't appear to be struggling. In fact, she embraces the thing which is hurting her. Thus, I can see this image as another potential way of expressing the Devil of the Tarot. It strikes a similar chord as (warning: yet more nudity!) the Waite Devil, or the Robin Wood Devil.
In other words, I don't like that picture, but it has its value.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 02, 2004 01:15 AM |
|
|
I'm not offended or disturbed by the picture for the simple reason that I find it too boring to bother getting worked up over. You want to have a discussion on art, so let's have one. The following, of course reflect my opinions. If you like the drawing and are moved by it, more power to you, that's your right, but it's also my right to not like it and if you give your opinions, I can give mine.
The drawing just isn't very good. Yes, technically, it's a good drawing. I suppose that if you want a realistic representation of a giant demon seducing a woman, that's the picture for you. Compositionally, it's a nightmare. You almost get the feeling that the artist painted an ass in the middle of the paper, realized it should probably be attached to a woman, so he added that. Then he got horny and added a big bestial demon to envelop her (maybe if you're stretching you could claim that it's actually an abstract depiction of lesbianism since the wing pose is somewhat vaginal, but that's probably giving the artist too much credit). Added self conscious symbol of giant snakes = penis then realized, "oh crap, I've got 2/3rds of the paper left. Well, maybe some dark swirls, that's always popular. If you could paint a definition of "cliche," this would be it. It would be better if it was controversial -- controversy suggests thought. As Khaelo pointed out, the only vaguely provocative thing in the drawing is the violence against women aspect. I'd argue it doesn't even do that, since there really isn't a woman in the picture, it's an object that is woman shaped. It's so pathetically on one side of the hackneyed "snow-nun" dichotomy that it looses any human relevance. The deepest thought this can convey is "Oh wow, what a nice ass. I'd sure like to be that demon. That demons a lot like me, you know, I'm so big and bestial that, fearful as those pure virgins may be, they can't resist my primeval manliness. Oh and those snakes sure remind me of how big my penis is. I sure wish I was out there making it with all those hotties instead of living in my parents' basement." It would have been better if it was porn. Porn has a purpose, porn says "you like looking at tits. Here are some tits to look at." No pretense, just tits (or body part of your choice).
There are so many other paintings you could use if you are trying to convince people of nudity's purpose in art. For instance, look at "Olympia" by Manet:
Here's nudity that can be really discussed on an artistic level. First of all, she's clearly human. Not some ideal of perfection (now, the ideal has a purpose in art, but I really don't think the demon + chick picture is using the ideal as anything more than a sexual fantasy. This woman, who is a prostitute, manages to rise above standardized snow-nun cliches. She is, technically, a snow, but the pose evokes earlier paintings that depicted, for instance, greek goddesses that were meant as symbols of purity and chastity, an effect underlined by entitling the painting "Olympia." Freed of such binary constraints, you can see her as what she is, a human. Not perfect, but not a devil. She's tired, she's had a long, hard day (no pun intended) and you're just another in a string of customers. An earlier customer sent her flowers. What the hell? Does he think this was anything more than a business transaction? That brings up questions about prostitution in general -- the woman in question is clearly being degraded and exploited, but at a certain level, mightn't the John also be considered to be degraded -- look at his pathetic attempts to suit her, has he deluded himself into believing he's some sort of knight in shining armor to save her from her fate? The art gets you thinking and it probably wouldn't have if she had been clothed. The nudity is an integral part of it as art.
Or, without nudity, but exploring similar themes to the horny demon picture, take Edvard Munch's The Vampire:
So here you have a man with slicked back black hair in a tuxedo with pointed ears and a pale skinned woman. You've probably seen a million pictures with that description in fantasy art drawings, but this one defies normal classification. First of all - which one is the vampire? It really seems more like she's the vampire than him. He almost looks like he's sobbing on her shoulder as she sucks his humanity from him. For historical context, women were very tentatively starting to gain some sort of semblance of rights at this time. This may well be a representation of a fear that women were supplanting men and making them irrelevant. (Of course, from our standpoint, the rights that women were fighting for then were in no way threatening, but I guess if you're from an era when half the population is barely above slave, maybe women gaining any rights at all seemed threatening). Or it may not, but the painting at least causes one to think about these things.
Regarding Vesuvius' post, of course censorship a la Ashcroft is bullsnow. Not even the most sick and twisted bestiality/rape/necrophilia porn picture could possibly be as much of a threat to the world as the concept of Camp X-ray and preemptive wars on false evidence. However, this is Valeriy's site and if he personally doesn't want nudity posted, that's his perogative.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
| |
|
|
