Be sure to cover those " NAUGHTY PLACES "
Naughty my ass. What's wrong with the people in this country. I'm talking about the good ol' USA. Land of the FREE, home of the brave. Can't even post a picture of a breast without getting wacked by the thought police.
Take DAZ for example ... you can't even show a nipple in that place. EDIT-- I was informed you can show nipples in the DAZ forum as long as the NUDITY box is checked ... that sounds fair to me, but the point still stands in the Galleries. DAZ isn't the only place where this occurs, there are more forums, they are but the example as it was their site that stirred me up ... read this thread posted there. it was the frosting ....
http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=25859
What's amazing, most of the thought that goes into this censorship is based on Christian attitudes ... you know, the home of the God that made man and women in his likeness. Of course we need to cover ourselves so we don't show those naughty spots....you know, the spots that we all have, or not...the nipples, and genitals. The most natural thing about man is his nudity and reproduction. Its a NATURAL state of affairs, not something that is BAD !!! God must be pissed that he made us in his likeness and we're afraid of showing any of his creation. We have to cover all that stuff up. It's BAD !!! BAD stuff.
Little boys and girls have all seen it since birth. Why not explain to them the beauty of it all, instead of introducing them to the forbidden fruit theory and putting them mentally into a guilt trip for the rest of their lives. Or, as happens most often, they sneak around looking and playing with each others genitals, having covert sex when mom and dad are gone, or behind the barn someplace, then little purity runs off to have an abortion. Yep...mighty fine things we teach our kids.
Open up and get real already, you prudes.
Naughty places ...
posted by David Soumis at 9:19 PM
40 Comments:
go read this and grow up!
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html
that's a long read, anonymous #2. I guess what maybe you're trying to say is the nudity TOS and rules are too trivial to worry about with all the "evil" mankind inflicts on each other. You are right to that point, but it still remains that nudity is a part of humanity and is not evil, nor nasty, and seeing a nude body is not, or at least , should not be, considered as something dirty or sinful.
Yes, there are evil people that take advantage of each other sexually, etc...but I doubt if that evilness comes from seeing nudity. Well, on second thought, maybe it does if the nude body is seen as forbidden fruit..it causes titilation and excitement becuase it is something that our society disallows. I would think it would be just the opposite if we all accepted it as being human...we all have a body, some of us may not be an adonis type and would remain clothed anyway, and some of us would never take our clothes off in fron of someone anyway, but if we were exposed to nudity as a normal state of life, a lot of the perversions that we have in our minds would slowly go away.
And I am fully grown. The continuous banter around this topic makes me crazy. Trivial in the overall scheme of things, with all that is happening in the world, yes it surely is, but it is still a pretty puritan way to believe, especially when even the puritans ought to be looking more at the evils described in that link posted than worrying about little johnny and Susie seeing a tit.
I agree, daveso.
There's absolutely no unbiased scientific evidence that exposure to nudity, or even most sexually explicit nudity, can have "harmful" effects on the average, healthy individual. I believe it's the negative connotation that we, as a society, choose put on such things that makes it so. We are endoctinated, at the earliest possible age, to be ashamed of the human body in it's most natural form, and then when we finally reach adulthood (or even adolescence), the psychological impact this trained 'sexual suppression' has on us can potentially manifest itself in many unnatual, and sometimes unhealthy forms. Religious people blame it on the devil, but I say it stems from our own programmed inhibitions.
I usually don't participate in such discussions but like you Dave-So, I am disgusted by all those posts agains nudity. If I don't want to see something, believe me, I'll find a way not to see it.
IMO, if someone flames the posters of "nude" renders anywhere on the Web, that person must have looked at the image long enough to see if whatever is covering the genitals and/or breasts of a model in an image IS clothing in their POV or not... What business do they have examining such images at large when they prudely say the don't want to see nudity on the Web??? (reference: DAZ post for example). In any case, Internet is worldwide and whoever say worldwide say multi-religion and athee people. So if I respect my beliefs, am I disrespectful of yours? If I am, then those who don't think or believe the same things I do and post comments that are at total opposite with my own beliefs are disrespectful of my beliefs... and so on! These are, IMO, the most useless and futile discussions to be found on the Web. As long as you're not living alone with no human, dog, cat or other animal and you're not communicating in any way with anyone, you have to understand that there are as many beliefs as there are people in this world and you won't change that. If you don't like what I do or say, don't look and don't listen. Do whatever you want according to your beliefs, but don't try to change mine because they are exactly that: M-I-N-E.
"What's a long read, anonymous #2. I guess what maybe you're trying to say is the nudity TOS and rules are too trivial to worry about with all the "evil" mankind inflicts on each other."
Wrong.
I am saying that the trivialization of sex has lead to the moral breakdown seen in the UK.
Children grow up afraid, alienated and fatherless because ex-fathers are too busy chasing the next slimey muff - their imaginations fueled by their nightly porn-orgy.
Easy access to porn and sensual imagery is ripping the moral fiber of our society apart - and the "artsy" are all up in arms because their beloved "freedoms" are to cause.
You are a prude too! - because there is SOMETHING that you would find offensive, something that you wouldn't want posted on your morning cereal box - like a wide open arse pumping a bloody, steaming shite into a human mouth!
-Anon#2
Good article Dave-So. It is inane thoughts and practices such as you listed, that pushed me away from organized religion and mainstream politics, and I am now an independent-thinking Libertarian. I was raised Catholic against my will, and the religous double-talk and back-stabbing in the Catholic church is disgusting. Did you notice the survivors from Hurricane Katrina mention about pleading that God save them? If you did, think about this: These people are 100% dependant on a spiritual being for salvation, when it is their own legs and bodies that can lead them to safety. These people put their lives in danger, hoping that by some divine intervention, Moses would part Lake Ponchatrain, and lead them to safety. Did you ever notice that "Jesus is the Shepherd, and we are his flock" type of statements? It is this brainwashing, that leads people to live their lives totally dependant and following whoever has the podium. It is the same group of non-thinkers that elect and support a politician on the grounds that he or she will protect them from themselves and the dregs of society. It is this total lack of reason that we today, are living under more Puritanical laws and fundamentalistic rhetoric. It is also shameful that people associate nudity with debauched orgasmic sexual excapades. Nudity can be a beautiful thing, from birth, to art, to aesthetics. It is a shame that these dogmatists conceal what is God-given, and relegate to the "dirty stuff file." If you look at nudity in the literal aspect, it means without coverings, stark, bare. We are in our element, as we truly were made with care, and cannot hide anything. In this sense, we are not covered by disguises, facades, and other false fronts. People desire to hide behind "walls and facades" to protect their own sinful ways and other shortcomings. Perhaps the dogmatists can realize this, and the shepherds can shear the sheep, removing the wool from covering the sheep's eyes.
I'm in the no-prude section myself. It pissed me off enough to start RM, I was that fed up with the current TOS on -most- gallery sites and didn't want to be forced to upload to just one site. Of course I went a little overboard, but what the hell. I don't feel nudity or depicted erotica is wrong in the least. It's just f'n art, folks, and it's not even of live subjects... they're friggin' meshes for crissakes. As long as sites like RM and Ro exist at least an artist can express themselves without worry of moral persecution. Within legal limits of course.
As for the cause of a breakdown in society, look closer at the parents rather than some other excuse. Art or even flat-out pornography doesn't have a damn thing to do with how well a child behaves or how they'll behave when they get older. Proper behavioral traits are something parents are supposed to teach them themselves, don't try and hang the noose around our necks because they've failed to do so properly. It's their job to teach them right from wrong, nudity and sexuality aren't wrong unless -parents- make them that way. I suppose next you'll be arguing that video games f*k kids up too. Wake up and smell the coffee, kids behave exactly how you raise them to. Make nudity a "perversion" and your kids will grow up to be closet perverts. Nudity is just another fact of life.
WTF does a cereal box have to do with this? That's the lamest analogy I've ever seen in this perpetual argument. If you log on to any art site, rendered or fine art from the masters throughout time, you better expect to see some amount of nudity. If that offends you, go look at user-submitted coloring pics at Sesamestreet.com and stop wasting your time at the real art sites. If you find simple nudity as vile as your description of that cereal box, you should probably seek some counseling anyway.
I understand some sites sticking to a "family site" excuse but I haven't seen a "family site" yet in the Poserverse. If the majority of folks didn't like meshes with nipples and genitals we wouldn't see any at all. There'd just be a lump where those items belong. So hell, you might as well show them in a render, otherwise it would just be a waste of a modeler's and texturer's talents. ;)
So cast my vote for extra nudity please, I don't want to be restricted to a nippleless, crotchless Vicky in a temple. That's just sad.
Keep the faith Dave, we're all in this together.
Anon#2,
you are missing the point here. You are putting nudity, porn, and fetishes into the same jar. I do not live in the UK, so i cannot directly argue the situation over there.
But think about this: Why are these fathers leaving families in pursuit of other females? You mentioned access to porn, but that is only one variable in a complex equation. If you look back in time, it was Henry VIII's divorce, which split the Roman Catholic Church, thus leading to the Anglican Church. This was shocking to many people at the time. Despite some minor differences, it is the repressive nature of fundamentalist religon, which demonizes sex for other than procreation. What is happening, is that this strict sexual demonization has lead to an interest into other sexual avenues, thus fueling the porn industry. If we weren't so sexually repressed, we wouldn't need to hoard porno mags and movies to fulfill our desires. Perhaps, these fathers wouldn't need to escape their families in the quest for a cute coed to shag-up with.
As for easy access to porn, i again am not familiar with the UK, but here in the states, most mags and videos are for those 18+, and 21+ depending on location. Sure, when I was 12, I looked through my buddy's brother's Playboy mags, but it was curiousity, not bloodlust. Playboy and other mags may not portray women in the best image, but it was the sheer beauty and curves that I found exciting.
One thing that is distasteful, is how advertisers use sex and nudity to sell a product. I often wonder what Abercrombie and Fitch is trying to sell, other than emaciated barely-legal naked teens. Someone clued me in that it was an ad for a hat. If it is, why do we need to look at a scrawny naked guy with swooning coeds chasing him? Why not just picture the hat? In the same token, why do women's magazines have ads with half-naked and fully nude women in them? I find it ironic that women complain about the same ad plastered on a billboard, but have no problem with it in their Cosmo mag. Just something to ruminate.
Anon#2,
you are missing the point here. You are putting nudity, porn, and fetishes into the same jar. I do not live in the UK, so i cannot directly argue the situation over there.
But think about this: Why are these fathers leaving families in pursuit of other females? You mentioned access to porn, but that is only one variable in a complex equation. If you look back in time, it was Henry VIII's divorce, which split the Roman Catholic Church, thus leading to the Anglican Church. This was shocking to many people at the time. Despite some minor differences, it is the repressive nature of fundamentalist religon, which demonizes sex for other than procreation. What is happening, is that this strict sexual demonization has lead to an interest into other sexual avenues, thus fueling the porn industry. If we weren't so sexually repressed, we wouldn't need to hoard porno mags and movies to fulfill our desires. Perhaps, these fathers wouldn't need to escape their families in the quest for a cute coed to shag-up with.
As for easy access to porn, i again am not familiar with the UK, but here in the states, most mags and videos are for those 18+, and 21+ depending on location. Sure, when I was 12, I looked through my buddy's brother's Playboy mags, but it was curiousity, not bloodlust. Playboy and other mags may not portray women in the best image, but it was the sheer beauty and curves that I found exciting.
One thing that is distasteful, is how advertisers use sex and nudity to sell a product. I often wonder what Abercrombie and Fitch is trying to sell, other than emaciated barely-legal naked teens. Someone clued me in that it was an ad for a hat. If it is, why do we need to look at a scrawny naked guy with swooning coeds chasing him? Why not just picture the hat? In the same token, why do women's magazines have ads with half-naked and fully nude women in them? I find it ironic that women complain about the same ad plastered on a billboard, but have no problem with it in their Cosmo mag. Just something to ruminate.
Anonymous#2-
Nudity in art isn't "evil" or responsible for the disintegration of "moral values".
We've had nudity in art for a few centuries now. Why is it only now we see a REAL disintegration?
For that matter, my husband enjoys a bit of pornography now and then, and he and I are currently celebrating two years of marriage and nearly four years of being together, as well as the birth of our third child.
Nudity is natural, not unhealthy. Erotic imagery, overt imagery and nude imagery in art are three separate things.
Perhaps the ability to distinguish between the three would help you more than banning the sight of women's breasts.
Good luck with your development of that.
"What's amazing, most of the thought that goes into this censorship is based on Christian attitudes ... you know, the home of the God that made man and women in his likeness".
On a side note, what I find disgusting is that the idiots comming up with this so called christian BS will go out and kill people in the (so called) name of the lord. It's pathetic and pathological.
I think if Jesus was alive today he would be really pissed at how we (humans) have fucked things up so badly.
OK, first off, one thing I noticed about the Daz thread you pointed to, which deals with something that has bugged me for quite a while: Tyger_Purr is a FUCKING FURRY. These types have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS discussing matters of normal sexuality/nudity. Why? These people get aroused only by others who are COVERED FROM HEAD TO TOE IN A FREAKISH FUR SUIT. That's the equivalent of putting a KKK member in charge of judging a rap music contest.
GrandPoobah....
What a toasted oat you are!
"WTF does a cereal box have to do with this? That's the lamest analogy I've ever seen in this perpetual argument."
Hey, what's wrong with that! It's "natural" ain't it??? And if it's "natural" then it must be good to look at. But you don't like it - I wonder why?
"If you log on to any art site, rendered or fine art from the masters throughout time, you better expect to see some amount of nudity."
Come on! Poser art is 90% lame, teenage fantasy nudies. It's "art" if blowing my nose on my sleave is art.
"Keep the faith Dave, we're all in this together."
Keep the faith is WHAT? Digital titties? LOL
Rowan Crisp ...
"For that matter, my husband enjoys a bit of pornography now and then, and he and I are currently celebrating two years ..."
You are in for a rude awakening someday sister.
Porn is poison. It will poison your marriage and your life. You will be sorry for your cavilear attitude someday.
If your husband has a problem with it, you would not know about it and more then likely he will not tell you. Go here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sex.addiction.recovery.moderated?lnk=sg&hl=en and read some stories of how porn can screw a man's life to hell.
"Nudity is natural, not unhealthy. Erotic imagery, overt imagery and nude imagery in art are three separate things."
Hey! aint they all "natural"???
Duh!
You just prefer one type to another - so you are a "prude" too! Why not put a picture of a steaming hot turd over your sofa??? It's "natural" remember - not "unhealthy".
- Anon#2
In my home country (Austria) you see ads on the street and in the newspapers with a lot of nudity, but no one really cares about it. I don't think that our society is really that different from the US or UK and our crime rate is certainly lower. I still don't understand from what we should be protected by the puritans.
Go to a museum, look at art. You find a lot of nuditity there, because the human body is a piece of art. There is a line between pornography and nudity and everyone can decide himself how far to go, but I think most puritans don't see that line.
Prohibition didn't work in the 30ties. To forbid nudity may have a similar effect...
Naughty Places should be covered!! Sex is Evil!! Video Games make kids violent!! Porn turns people into rapists or sex maniacs!!
All 4 statements are believed by certain people & all 4 statements are total crap.
Every person & animal on the face of the planet has "Naughty Places" maybe we should start making the animals were clothes too?
Every person here with the exception of maybe anonymous was created thanks to sex so if it's that evil maybe they should not be alive right now.
I've played video games since the very first ones created by Atari & I've still not killed anyone in real life, guess it takes a really sick individual to be affected by games huh?
Porn, now this is something I look at sometimes but like the video games you have to have certain ideas in your head first before it'll turn you into a monster.
I know I strayed off the subject a little but all 4 topics are related to those asshats trying to brainwash the population into thinking like them, & for those religious muppets out there, the Bible is fiction!
I totally agree. What really annoys me, that I can't show a half naked fairy or whatsoever on a certain site, but it is ok to sell gaschambers, witches on the stake items etc. in the store of that same site, where these store items also show thumbnails of these items using poserpeople. Nudity is a taboo, but killing people is ok. I don't mind my kids seeing nudity as it is all natural, as it was accepted for thousands of years in mankind's history. I do however object to my kids seeing all the violence shown (movies, art etc.)
That was a good read, thank you. And I totally agree with you Dave. Europe is still normal, but I have no idea for how long, the new Pope is more strict than our Polish (RIP) one...It's all sick. Oh, and in Europe sexual assaults does not become more often than in USA - and we don't bitch about every nipple or ass on TV, newspapers or on the Web. Prudery leads to nowhere. In Poland children are not molested more often than in USA - and you can still see stark nekkid little children (up to 4-5 years old) running around on the seaside or playgrounds, without false prudery. Nudity is much healthier than killing, which world is full of. Older kids (above 5, when they start attending school) are told not to show bare ass to people, but noone will ever tell them not to kill a kitty or punch a girl - that's really scary, much scarier than damn fairy with naked tits.
Let's correct one fallacy, aight...
Freedom of Speech.
On private websites such as Daz3D, Freedom of Speech DOES NOT APPLY...
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm
Quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of Speech is a basic right granted by the Bill of Right to protect citizens from the government.
When you sign up with these websites, you AGREE to a Terms of Service. You voluntarily submit yourself to this when you sign up for an account.
For many places, Free Speech ends when you start violating TOS. For many people, Free Speech ends when they start violating the rights of others. Many people fail to remember or even read the sites TOS when agreeing to it and end up on the wrong side of a suspension or a ban. Just as many people do not care what the TOS is and sign up for a website just to harass someone.
As for the little agruement of Take it to Renderotica, realize that they too have a TOS. Yes, they are an adult site with images ranging from a G rating all the way up to and including XXX and taboo stuff. There are things they do not allow - Warez, Children and Beastility...
If you participate in any of the above three, you will not be welcomed there. If you are caught doing the above three, you will be banned faster than you can blink.
This little line about "Freedom of Speech" is one of my pet peeves. Yes, you have the Freedom to make an Arse out of yourself as long as you are adult enough to except the consequences of your actions. You break the rules, expect to lose priviledges.
(Disclaimer: This is not directed at any person or persons in particular. The author of the above rant has seen this arguement used hundreds of times in her 10 yr tenure in forums and the internet. You may now return to your regularly scheduled blogging.)
freedom of speech is not the issue here. I agree its DAZ or anyone elses right to have on THEIR site what the want on THEIR site. I have no problem with that. Its the chatter and what I perceive as just plain idiocy worrying about whether or not you can see Vickys nipply or breat, hhow much can show prior to seeing the npple, the very fact we keep seeing, "naughty places" as a term used, the apparant belief that the nude body or seeing it is filth.
What I do see as wrong are Christians or any religious group, upholding all these fine moral values, but have no problem at all killing a doctor doing abortions, supporting a war that is killing hundreds of thousands, banning gays and other folks from their organizations....on and on ... but if you read the very book these folks are gathring their beliefs from, the guy starting it all treated everyone has his brother or sister, tried to cure the sick, help the needy, saved the whore, on and on.
This does not pertain to pornography ... porn is as the word defines. I don't want to see some woman age 18 being exploited and forced dto have sex, nor do I think it appropriate to see gang banging, oral sex, whips and chains, lesbian toy action or any of that stuff displayed all over the place. The whole point is that I believe if everyone were to lighten up on the nudity aspect, a lot of the perversive stuff would slowly go away ... why? because we wouldn't have to fantasize so much about little Julie with the half naked breasts with here little perky nipples showing through the thin cloth and here pelvis showing wearing the low riders...because WE WILL BE SEEING THE BODY ALL THE TIME AS A NORMAL STATE OF AFFAIRS
Couldn't agree more, Dave, with your original statement and with the one just above.
As to Christianity, one of my ex's wiser sayings is that it would be a lot easier to take if St. Paul had gotten laid occasionlly!
(Interesting that the red-light district in Hamburg bears the name of that esteemed apostle.)
Anonymous 2 states that the UK is going straight to hell due to a loss of moral values. Has he/she never read Dickens? The lot of children in that supremely "Christian" and moral age was a hell of a lot worse than anything to be found in the UK these days.
...and in conclusion, may I say that ChristoNazis piss me off!
Anonymous said...
"OK, first off, one thing I noticed about the Daz thread you pointed to, which deals with something that has bugged me for quite a while: Tyger_Purr is a FUCKING FURRY. These types have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS discussing matters of normal sexuality/nudity."
ROTFLMAO
I've been accused of many things, but this is the furst :) time I’ve been accused of being a "furry".
If you can get past the name and read the substance of my post, i make no judgment as to if it is right or wrong, i have only interpreted the rules as they relate to that picture.
Anon#2:
Just because you and yours have no self-control and no ability to control yourself doesn't mean that everyone is as unfamiliar with the concept of moderation.
Or is that another dirty word to you? "Moderation". Scary. Shiver in your boots.
By the way, I have the cajones to sign my real name - where're yours?
What kills me though about the whole thing about christianity and nudity, is that if they want to go by bible... Adam and Eve found out they were nude and started covering *themselves*. God never gave them that term and didn't bother about it at all. In fact he asked what their problem was.
We brought this on ourselves. I totally agree with you daveso. There is nothing in the world wrong with the human body! They got kicked out of Eden because of that silliness, so you'd think that Christians would know better.
TrekkieGrrrl said...
"It always amuses me when people rant and rave - and then don't have the guts to use their name. Which is why I despise anonymous posters. They're cowards."
So post your home address and phone number, sweetie - that way you won't be anonymous either.
"With the new laws creeping up everywhere and thought police making 1984 look like a picknic, I can only say SPEAK UP! Raise your voice AGAINST this idiocy! Don't let the world be dictated by narrowminded bigots!"
ooh, ooh, Big Brothers coming to take away my porn!
"We're BORN nude for crying out loud! How an you NATURAL STATE ever be wrong?!"
Your also born an infant - do you want to stay that way too?
- Anon#2
Placeing this *mainly* on Christians in general is unfair. There are plenty who don't feel that nudity is "evil". I would place it more in a fundamentalist category, personally.
That said, I agree with setting particular lines that aren't crossed. There is a huge difference between pain old nudity, artistic nudity and porn. There are varying degrees of porn and even more opinions of what constitutes porn.
In a way, look at it like you would laws. If we didn't have laws, situations like the looting in New Orleans wouldn't be the exeptions they would be the norm. (if you have a higher opinions of humans in general, good for you, I don't) If there weren't laws regarding porn on the web, sites would have potentially offensive images on the main page and not after an alert or "are you 18" page.
Parents have the right to decide what type of nudity they want their children exposed to and at what age. Those who make it so completely taboo are not doing their kids any favors, but you can't exactly lump them into the same category as parents who choose to simply regulate what they expose their children to and (more importantly) when.
There is nothing wrong with nudity but when my 6 year old comes home from school talking about rape or using the word "fuck", I feel she is too young to be exposed to that and it's frustrating to find out it came from her classmate of the same age who is exposed to any and all movies and imagery regardless of the content.
Movies like American Pie or Porkys where teenage boys are spying on teenage girls or in other ways disrespecting them are not what I want my son to see at a young age when he isn't mature enough to process it.
But the artistically nude artwork in my bedroom I have no problem with him seeing. Museum artwork is not an issue. Nudity isn't taboo, you can find it anywhere which is why I find the complaints a bit hypocritical when certain sites choose to regulate it. Deciding it should be wherever and whenever is much the same as deciding it should all go away.
RowanCrisp said...
"Just because you and yours have no self-control and no ability to control yourself doesn't mean that everyone is as unfamiliar with the concept of moderation."
Nice avoidance of the topic.
"Or is that another dirty word to you? "Moderation". Scary. Shiver in your boots."
Do you let your hubby visit prostitutes in "moderation". Do you let him sleep with your neighbor in "moderation"???? Hah!
"By the way, I have the cajones to sign my real name - where're yours?"
Right here >>> anon#2
(like TrekkieGrrrl, I'll bet you lack the cajones to post your real address & ph# - so much for anonymity!)
Anonymous said...
"... Adam and Eve found out they were nude and started covering *themselves*. God never gave them that term and didn't bother about it at all. In fact he asked what their problem was."
"They got kicked out of Eden because of that silliness, so you'd think that Christians would know better."
Oh, hey... we've got a theologian here!
What drivel! Have you ever bothered to read the Bible or do you just make it up as you go????
-Anon#2
Quote: "You are a prude too! - because there is SOMETHING that you would find offensive, something that you wouldn't want posted on your morning cereal box - like a wide open arse pumping a bloody, steaming shite into a human mouth!"
That's the most ill-conceived analogy I've ever read, on any subject. Are you suggesting that artistic nudity or even most forms of explicit sexuality is the same as obscene pornographic imagery of someone shitting in another's mouth? Are you saying that both kinds of imagery have the SAME effect on the human psyche??? YOU, sir, need to get off the internet, go to your local library, and read a few books on psychology, because your understanding of the human brain seems grossly lacking.
Disbelief said...
"That's the most ill-conceived analogy I've ever read, on any subject. Are you suggesting that artistic nudity or even most forms of explicit sexuality is the same as obscene pornographic imagery of someone shitting in another's mouth?"
What I am trying to get through some very thick sculls is that everyone discriminates to one degree or another (duh!). You say you find the slimey poop in the mouth offensive???? Well, to use the moronic phrase "who are we to judge?". You've got your own set of standards of acceptable and unacceptable imagery - just like those you mock. The thing is - you want "your" standards to prevail.
And I'm betting you don't see the hypocrisy in that!!!
"Are you saying that both kinds of imagery have the SAME effect on the human psyche???"
It's easier to fight a strawman when you don't have an argument - isn't it!
- the friendly Anon#2
"(like TrekkieGrrrl, I'll bet you lack the cajones to post your real address & ph# - so much for anonymity!)"
Nice evasion. Unlike you, this is the ID that people know me by. It's my professional tag, it's the carrier of my day-to-day reputation. Should I fuck up somehow, I will actually bear the consequences.
It's not as easy to find me by it in real-time as it would be to find my phone number and address, which I won't post here because I simply do not trust you - or the majority of the internet - not to do stupid things with the information.
But, hey, easier to snipe at people who may know or recognize you without any consequences, isn't it?
Chickenshit. :)
I won't be addressing you anymore. You're a strawman-constructing coward without the ability to debate constructively. Dismissed.
Dave - isn't there an IP logging function for Blogger? I haven't updated mine in ages, so wouldn't know.
RowanCrisp ...
"Nice evasion."
Nice reuse of my material.
"It's not as easy to find me by it in real-time..."
Wouldn't want to.
"...as it would be to find my phone number and address, which I won't post here because I simply do not trust you"
Good idea. It was intended to show your "lack of anonymity" is a farce - not an actual request. I would hope you would never do that.
"I won't be addressing you anymore. You're a strawman-constructing coward without the ability to debate constructively. Dismissed."
Hardly. It seems you are the one unable to form a logical argument - hence all the hot air in your post.
"Dave - isn't there an IP logging function for Blogger? I..."
Oh boo-hoo. What about you people and your "freedom of speach" - or is that only for the clueless, a-morals who agree with you???
What are you going to do... sick the "Poser-Police" on me!!!!!
HA!
Anon#2
Daveso, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
On the other hand, Anon No. 2, you're not making sense. You're comparing apples to hand grenades (so to speak). There is nothing inherently harmful about nudity or about people witnessing nudity.
Poop is a bodily waste product, which is why we perceive it as icky. It's icky because our body has said "I can't do anything with that, so I'm getting rid of it."
There's a difference between things that are literally bad and things that we find personally distasteful. You find nudity distasteful, but it is not literally bad because it does no harm. (Unless you're talking about prolonged nudity in sub-zero temperatures.)
On the other hand, eating poop is bad for you. And, yes, it's generally considered distasteful because of this.
I don't suppose you're catching on yet?
"Hey, what's wrong with that! It's "natural" ain't it??? And if it's "natural" then it must be good to look at. But you don't like it - I wonder why?"
No. It's not 'natural' to deficate in someone's mouth, etc. The natural purpose of our ability to disgard waste from our bodies is not so that it can be re-consumed by another individual. That should be obvious, since the contents of feces is the waste that our bodies no longer need or can use. So your argument is moot, in the sense that you are attempting to compare a perfectly normal function like sex (something that is hardwired to the instincts of all animals, including humans), and the display of our original/natural forms (nudity) with actions that are largely considered illegal, not to mention very unhealthy.
Most of us are not BORN with the desire to eat our own shit.
The question is, can NUDITY be unhealthy? Perhaps only in the minds of those programmed to think so... which, judging from this blog, seems to be a minority of people.
KDoug said...
"I don't suppose you're catching on yet?"
No my friend, you are the one who is not catching on.
From a previous post...
"What I am trying to get through some very thick sculls [with that illustration] is that everyone discriminates to one degree or another (duh!). You say you find the slimey poop in the mouth offensive???? Well, to use the moronic phrase "who are we to judge?".
You've got your own set of standards of acceptable and unacceptable imagery - just like those you mock. The thing is - you want "your" standards to prevail.
And I'm betting you don't see the hypocrisy in that!!!"
"You find nudity distasteful, but it is not literally bad because it does no harm."
So your contention is that pornography does no harm?
Anon#2
maxxxmodelz said...
"No. It's not 'natural' to deficate in someone's mouth, etc."
Nor is it natural to rip a child from it's mother's womb - or for two men to attempt copulation - both of which are pet practices of the amoral crowd.
"Not natural" to WHO??? To you? Don't you think your being a tad "judgmental" - or even prudish perhaps! If you can't see the art in that you might just be a knuckle-dragging fundamentalist!
"So your argument is moot"
Wrong - your argument is vapid.
"in the sense that you are attempting to compare a perfectly normal function like sex ... with actions that are largely considered illegal, not to mention very unhealthy."
Again, from a previous post...
"What I am trying to get through some very thick sculls [with that illustration] is that everyone discriminates to one degree or another (duh!). You say you find the slimey poop in the mouth offensive???? Well, to use the moronic phrase "who are we to judge?".
You've got your own set of standards of acceptable and unacceptable imagery - just like those you mock. The thing is - you want "your" standards to prevail."
"...and the display of our original/natural forms (nudity)"
An image of someone deficate in someone's mouth uses only "natural" forms - it's all "natural".
"The question is, can NUDITY be unhealthy? "
No, the question is, can UNRESTRAINED SEXUALITY be unhealthy.
Anon#2
Oh neat. i like your blog. And I like talking about things in Poserland without having the pressure to play-nice.
My thoughts on this is matter aren't so simple. I totally agree that teaching kids natural processes of nature, our body, and our ancestors are all evil is stupid and igorant. But I also think there are invisible social rules that should be respected.
Some things is Poserland are very sexualized. Most them lean towards female nudity, but there are also over-top male on male places too.
As a woman, I don't want to see the nipples of yet another Poser dude's fantasy sex object, or yet-another steoroid freak homoeroctic military forced sex render. Eoooowww. I will avoid places alienate me, but I will look just because I'm curious about what people create. I don't think nudity or sexualized art should be taken down, they have their fans, I just like being able to go to "safe" places. DAZ is one of those places. If you must post a nipple, why not go to places where readers want to see those nipples?
Seriously. If I posted a beautiful render of an idealized man with his junk swinging in the breeze at Daz, you can bet your money guys would complain, shreck, and cover their eyes. Why doesn't occur to men that women react the same to pictures of women with their huge breasts boucing on the breeze? We don't like it either. So why not just respect each other and each those images to places where it's liked and encourages?
Make sense?
-A-
Anon No. 2, yes, you are absolutely correct that everyone discriminates to one degree or another. But, what you don't seem to want to recognize is that some of these discriminations have objective, factual reasons and others have cultural reasons NOT based in objective, factual reasons. I endeavor to practice humanist values, which means, "if it's not doing any harm, let 'em do it." That is what I'm basing all of my arguments on.
I find this quote of yours interesting:
"You've got your own set of standards of acceptable and unacceptable imagery - just like those you mock. The thing is - you want 'your' standards to prevail.
"And I'm betting you don't see the hypocrisy in that!!!"
I think that, if you can turn an argument around and apply it to yourself or your ideas, it's just not much of an argument. You're claiming that I'm a hypocrite because I have my own standards of acceptable and unacceptable imagery and I only want my own standards to prevail.
But couldn't I say that you're a hypocrite because you have your own standards of acceptable and unacceptable imagery and you only want your own standards to prevail?
If I've misunderstood you, please correct me.
"So your contention is that pornography does no harm?"
I never even used the word pornography in my previous post. You should try to read and understand someone's post before criticizing it. Nudity is generally a part of pornography, but nudity and pornography are not the same thing.
But if you want to talk about the issue of pornography, here goes: A problem with discussing the potential harm of pornography is that there are many different kinds and degrees of pornography. The only thing you can do to sum up ALL pornography is that it involves nude or partially-clothed photographs or depictions of human beings.
However, that brings us back to simple nudity, which is not pornography. To get to something that might do harm, we need to go a little farther.
Let's say that we're considering pornography that involves a nude individual making light contact with one of their erogenous zones. Even this does not have to be pornography. It could be scratching or washing while being nude. But if it is clear that it's pornography, let's consider:
Assuming it's a photo or a piece of artwork in which a model was used, is it harmful to the person depicted? Unless they were coerced or threatened into posing or they were posing in unsafe conditions, no, there is no harm done. Is it harmful to anyone viewing the picture? That depends largely on the individual's level of maturity. I may not want a child viewing it, but it most likely wouldn't do any lasting harm unless someone was forcing the child to look at it.
Going a bit further: Let's say that it's a piece of pornography that involves a man and a woman conducting ordinary sexual intercourse (i.e., there's nothing kinky or dangerous going on). Again, assuming neither one was coerced into participating and they're practicing safe sex, there's no harm done to them.
Again, I wouldn't want a child looking at it and definitely not through coercion. But if a child does see it, a parent could use it as an opportunity to explain about adult sexuality and how sex can be used as a bond between two consensual lovers. If it's done right, an event that could have had a negative effect could wind up having a positive effect on a child. But, of course, I wouldn't want to bet on it. Bottom line: You don't purposely show a child pornography. But if they come upon some by accident and you find out, you talk to them about it so that they understand it.
So, you see, there needs to be a number of other factors involved before we can say that any given piece of pornography has done harm. It's just not as black & white as you're trying to make it.
Another thing that you're having a habit of doing is putting words in people's mouths. The whole premise of Daveso's article was that simple nudity is innocuous. Yet, you're trying to expand this into pornography, ingestion of feces, abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, etc. None of these things was part of what Daveso was promoting. Why are you trying to turn it into that?
As a matter of fact, Daveso originally said, "Why not explain to them the beauty of it all, instead of introducing them to the forbidden fruit theory and putting them mentally into a guilt trip for the rest of their lives. Or, as happens most often, they sneak around looking and playing with each others genitals, having covert sex when mom and dad are gone, or behind the barn someplace, then little purity runs off to have an abortion. Yep...mighty fine things we teach our kids."
This sounds to me like Daveso is against, as you say, unrestrained sexuality.
Like I said, you should try to read and understand what people wrote before you criticize them.
Well - it has now come to an all time low as far as I am concerned.
Just had a an entry in R'osity's Halloween contest rejected.
Ok it was my fault at first for not reading the rules and I had a naked Zombie in it.
So fair enough it was rejected but the killer came when I was informed that to resubmit it I would need to cloth the 2 demonoid figures.
I take it they were refering to either the 2 goblin characters or the demon based on a Satyr figure....
How a genderless goblin can be considered nude is beyond me.... or a satyr for that matter....
Sorry, have been gone since Friday morning...just got back.
I appreciate the control and restraint :)
Yes, I do not believe in sex all over the place, in fact, the way we're dressing our children, especially females, is a bit asking for early sexual relationships, in my opinion. A little restraint there by parents would be very helpful. We don't need the long black dresses with scarves, but appropriate attire for 10 year olds would be in order, let alone the fact I see a lot of girls 13-17 that dress more like skanks than a young teenage girl.
We had the issue with the Janice Jackson breast show ... which happened so fast that if the media hadn't blasted on about it and replayed the clip 52,000 times, most folks would not have even noticed, and the rest wouldn't have known about it.....
but the same folks raising the battle flags on that one, rave, ooh , and awe about Desparate Housewives, and even show it on prime time when all the little kiddies are still up...and I betcha most of these folks are having family time watching the damn immoral program.
And that's where I'm at ... the hypocrisy of the whole thing...
If you want a safe place to go, and DAZ is that place, so be it. I accept their TOS. But quit going on and on about how much nipple you can show, whether some nude guy is nude , and on and on. Just put clothes on your dudes and dudess, dress them up...no see through, no nipples, no trying to create the nude dong man behind the bucket trick ....just dress em up and shut up.
Post a Comment
<< Home