Snapped Shot

Basically, Cap'n, that last line is what you're arguing for: Shari'a Law. Men can't control themselves from their base desires, so women must cover themselves to stave of the wolves. No matter the age, no matter the position, any female who isn't covered head to toe is going to incite unbridled lust.

Sorry, I'm totally against you on this.
Reply  

See, here's where my liberal upbringing shows through. Cap'n, I know you were being sarcastic, but I was pointing out that your sarcasm is actually prophetic.

The assumption that a naked child will instill lust in men is right in line with Shari'a law, which is why Shari'a pushes for full covering of women. However this is not the case.

As a normal adult, you don't look at a naked child and think sex, you probably think of innocence (a common subject in art). But with such a virulent reaction to nudity, you push forward an ideal that that child's body will create lust.

If you believe clothes are protection from "perverts", then talk to people who have been sexually assaulted on the street. Lust isn't visual it's mental, chemical, hormonal. Just like a picture of a naked man doesn't inspire lust in a heterosexual man, this child won't inspire lust in most people. For those that are inspired to lust for the child, clothes don't matter, just as clothes don't matter when one sees a hot woman. She's desirable, no matter the state of undress.

Now, the over-the-top reaction of making the mother and daughter walk around naked because the daughter is naked for a picture is outlandish. Conversely, should they force you to sit around and do nothing while they parade in your house and do whatever they wish? Of course not, and neither should they be subjected to such fantastical ridicule.

My point is that such nudity is only controversial in the minds of zealots. A rational look at the situation shows no reason to fear that image or fear for the child. The only shame she'll encounter is from people who hate her body simply because it exists, and she's not more likely to be assaulted because of the image unless it's from people who want to hide her away and make her feel shame at being human.

And Brian, seriously, nudity is pornography? Such a definition would mean breastfeeding is sexual assault, that the great masters of renaissance art were just peddling sexual titillation, and that the human body is nothing but a shameful object that must be covered under thick robes and hidden away from uncontrollably lustful eyes. Are we not better, more controlled, than our cousins from hundreds and thousands of years past? Biology may dominate us, but our ability to think rationally helps us to transcend base instincts.
Reply  

First off, the Cisco router is dead. Long live the Cisco router! :>

Rooster… well, you know.

Now back to the fun. Cap’n, our points of view are pretty close to polar opposites, but I’ll keep writing just to clarify my view. This kind of controversial talk is my kind of fun.

If I recall correctly, the girl was 8 when the pictures were taken, and as this furor erupts, she’s now 11 years old.

Phrases like “They don’t know no better” and “She has seen the seedier side of life” are ones that I have trouble with because it conflates nudity with shame and perversity. Nudity is probably the most natural we can be, as we are brought into this world bare. Clothing has evolved in style and meaning, but it’s mostly to keep us protected from the elements, not to keep us protected from each other. If clothing is mostly to keep us protected from each other, then we should welcome Shari’a law.

Lack of nudity — meaning keeping certain bits covered — is what causes titillation. When your biology says you want something but it’s hidden away from you in plain sight, this creates frustration. This is something being noticed in the Muslim world where sexual frustration is being channeled into the Jihad. When seeing the object of your desire in plain sight, that object becomes less frustratingly desirable over time to the point of it becoming commonplace. This is what happens with nudists. New nudists are shameful and gawky, but as they get used to seeing nude women and men around them all the time, the shame and frustration is sapped from them. Seeing this phenomena, one can conclude that nudity itself isn’t wrong or perverse, and can in fact be good.

I, personally, would never want to allow full nudity in public, but not because it’s dirty or prurient, but because it’s unsanitary. I wouldn’t be keen on sitting where bare-assed people have been hanging out because they would probably leave behind smegma and e. coli. Can’t have that.

As to Brian’s comment, he did say the image of a naked child was child pornography, and essentially agreed with your interpretation, so if nudity is child pornography, then by that definition one could say breast feeding is child molestation, etc. Now Brian won’t post my Photoshops anymore! See what you made me do, Cap’n?! lol

Standards. We all know media makes money by fascinating and titillating us, otherwise we don’t watch, so media standards are a poor measuring stick. Media is a reactionary force only. The law, too, is a reactionary force. Laws are enacted only after something occurs that creates fear. Unfortunately, the law punishes the victim in many cases, whether it’s drug use or nudity. To put someone in jail and force them to face the dregs of society because they didn’t have something covering their nipples is outrageous and wholly unacceptable in my not-so-humble opinion. These laws are called “protection”, but they don’t punish perpetrators of crimes, they punish those who might be attacked by criminal elements, all on the assumption that to put yourself into a potentially compromising situation is equivalent to assault and rape. Cat meat imam from Australia, no?

Again, as you said, it comes down to standards. Shall we punish nudity, or those who would take advantage of the nude? Should we jail the parents of a naked child, or those who would gleefully subject them to shame and humiliation — and rape in jail — because they painted or photographed something eminently natural? We can prove that the image of a naked person, at any age, is not harmful to anyone, so why should they be punished because such an image might make someone else think it’s okay to assault and rape that naked person? Our standard should be to punish those who would cause physical harm to a nude person, not to harm the nude person in the hope of preventing an assault and/or rape.

So sayeth the Donkeyrock. :>
Reply  

Whew! I thought my high paying career in Photoshop commenting was over! lol
Reply  

One last time. I guess this'll be the last one I post on this topic:

Brian pays me $10,000 per Photoshop of Ahmadinejad, and I have to pay for my crack addiction, so I won't give it up. lol

Mandating clothes means punishment for not wearing clothes, hence jail time for being naked. So by doing something that doesn't cause physical harm, people without clothes are punished with physical harm (jail, assault, rape) under the legal guise of preventing them from being physically harmed by those who would assault and/or rape them. Uncool.

Also, if plain nudity can be redefined as pornography, then any kind of skin-baring can be redefined as something more sexualized. For example, breast feeding, which involves baring the female breast and allowing a minor child to put its mouth on it can be child molestation. Yes, it's the wrong definition, but that's my point: you can't redefine nudity to mean pornography.
Reply