EltonTeng wrote:
zync wrote:
Having discourse where I explain my point as compared to someone else's is not being intolerant or judging. If I do not explain my point then why should I say anything? Please do not think that I am being intolerant of you, I am merely asking you a question. I have never been accused of being intolerant. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the world. I have not flamed anyone for their beliefs. I may have said that those beliefs should not be aspired to—such as prudery—but I did not verbally assault anyone for bringing up their point. I have even tolerated comments that have only been posted to rile people in this thread. Are you just attempting to rile me up? I hope not as you will surely be wasting your time and energy.

I have accepted your view. That does not mean that I have to agree with it.

Disclaimer: If you only wrote that I was intolerant due to mistaking my explanation about 'utterly stupid,' disregard everything after my first paragraph.

Edited by zync on Sep 06, 2006 at 11:21 PM GMT (Reason: Added disclaimer)

Each time you outwardly express an opinion based on your internal set of core values you are in fact, expressing intolerance towards another view. Your tone of expression has nothing to do with it. Intolerance in any form is not acceptable, even when it comes across calm and even as you have been. Surely a Klan member will calmly discuss with you his equally valid perspective.

You have invalidated the Puritans (dead for 400 years?), those people who feel nudity is wrong, implied that I do not understand the world, reserved the right to be intolerant to the utterly stupid, and openly disagreed with several people on the board.

Those of us who had been through the UC system in the Left Coast here know that wherever we encounter disagreement, we should take one of the following course of action:

- be a pacifist and walk away from the situation
- turn the page
- shut off the TV or the radio/change the station or channel
- click on the back button of your Internet browser
- look to the Euros for guidance and acceptance.

Please do understand that I am trying to help you to become more liberal & progressive and thus I am taking the risk of coming across as intolerant or insincere myself. Obviously you're disagreeing with me so I will cease my efforts.

I will make this plain. I stand by my point that you should look up what it means to be tolerant. I hate to have to bring the dictionary into an argument, but so be it:

Tolerant
1. showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

Therefore I have been tolerant. I'm sorry you should think otherwise. While I have reserved the right to be intolerant to intentional stupidity, I have not exercised that right thus I have even tolerated intentional stupidity.

I have not invalidated the puritans. Their views were normal for their time. However, they no longer exist in the same form, explained by them having been dead for so long.

Intolerance is not expressing contrary views. Intolerance is being unwilling to listen to another's viewpoint. Ask anyone on this forum and I'm sure they'll agree. A Klan member might be calm and collected, but their views are based on hate not a simple disagreement. A Klan member is unwilling to accept people that aren't white.

I have no idea what the 'UC system' is, but you do come off sounding elitist. This is not intolerance to your views, it is a statement questioning the relevance of whatever this 'UC system' is.

Also, I fit completely within the definition of liberal in case you were wondering. Please do not question that. This is not intolerance, it's a simple statement of 'I know myself better than you do,' and you have not proved otherwise in your arguments. I do not believe that you can make me a better liberal, but you can surely attempt if you wish. I am open to your suggestions.

This is an open discussion. I believe that I have been completely open and considerate of other's views. Thus I have expressed tolerance. I apologize if you think otherwise, but that is untrue. This is not intolerance, I have provided the generally accepted definition of tolerance and I have adhered to it. To completely disregard what you have said concerning this particular point is not intolerance, it is relying upon non-subjective fact. I can accept your views but if you are wrong, you are wrong. If I told you 2+2 is 4 and you tell me it's 5 you are just plain wrong. If you instead tell me that this photo is right or wrong, I am willing to listen.

Edited by zync on Sep 07, 2006 at 10:29 AM GMT

We also should ban all women pictures with veil. Because in many arab nations I imagine that's a big thing for men who never saw a woman's face, unless it's a wife... So just imagine what those men will do with pictures of a women without veil! We defenetly should ban those pictures. Yes.

And in some african tribes I've heard the sight of an woman's armpit is a really no-no (but bare breasts are okay). So I imagin men of those tribes really get off from a picture of an armpit. So we shouldn't post any pictures of armpits. But naked breasts are okay. Oh, wait, breasts are not okay, because religious americans are against it... So how do we censor ourselvs to be safe from all perverts of the world? The only way I see is to not post pictures at all. Because no matter what you post, someone somewhere might find it real hot...

I find your icon very sexy, vlad

(note for posterity: at this point it's a picture of either a tachometer or speedometer)

Phil Bonner wrote:

Or, are you and the OP suggesting that we should return to those Medievel Times and routinely have our children entertain us wirth public displays of nudity?


So you find it entertaining Man... Now I see what the problem is. If somebody would ask me to come with any imaginable entertaiment I want I still would never have "children's public displays of nudity" in my list

zync wrote:
I find your icon very sexy, vlad

(note for posterity: at this point it's a picture of either a tachometer or speedometer)

You are very careful indeed It's a tach of my Z. Hope you not j*** o** on that picture or it'll be a cruel expluatation of my car without it's consent.

Vlad_10D wrote:
Phil Bonner wrote:

Or, are you and the OP suggesting that we should return to those Medievel Times and routinely have our children entertain us wirth public displays of nudity?


So you find it entertaining Man... Now I see what the problem is. If somebody would ask me to come with any imaginable entertaiment I want I still would never have "children's public displays of nudity" in my list

! Deliberate misinterpretation of the opposing view so that you can better ridicule it is hardly good argumentation. Do you deny Phil's point that there is a compelling interest in protecting children from exploitation? Do you also deny that some people would consider the presentation of a nude, non-infant child as a matter of exploitation? This view, as opposed to the inappropriateness of a woman's armpit, is a much more common view I assure you...

I sent links of this gallery to a few very 'progressive' people and artists living in SoCal and NorCal, all of whom were quite comfortable with nudity and its use in the arts. I did not get a single person respond finding this portrayal to be appropriate or necessarily respectful to the subject. A bunch of liberal Californians, many working in the arts, have a lot more access to artistic and progressive cultural influences than the random African tribe you list in your defense.

Hence, stating the 'boutique' perspective of an African tribe whose members are unlikely to participate in this forum is pretty pointless, as is the your discussion of the veil, since that's not even a majority Islamic practice. How many people on this forum do you think are offended by an unveiled woman, or an exposed armpit, versus a nude child? One glimpse back at the 'people forum' will give you pretty good sense of that.

EltonTeng wrote:
Those of us who had been through the UC system in the Left Coast here know that wherever we encounter disagreement, we should take one of the following course of action:

- be a pacifist and walk away from the situation
- turn the page
- shut off the TV or the radio/change the station or channel
- click on the back button of your Internet browser
- look to the Euros for guidance and acceptance.

Please do understand that I am trying to help you to become more liberal & progressive and thus I am taking the risk of coming across as intolerant or insincere myself. Obviously you're disagreeing with me so I will cease my efforts.

As a fellow UC Alumnus, and a product of a 'liberal' education, I have to wonder what school or department taught you to stick your head in the sand in the name of tolerance?

Intolerant or not, Phil has argued his points very well. Your abstract discussion about what it means to be 'tolerant' amounts to little in that context; in your world, we could not have meaningful discussion of any public policy, artistic or philosophical question or social more without silencing ourselves in the name of 'tolerance.'

Arka C.

Vlad_10D wrote:
You are very careful indeed It's a tach of my Z. Hope you not j*** o** on that picture or it'll be a cruel expluatation of my car without it's consent.

Haha! Which type of Z, out of curiosity? And no, I won't be doing any such thing with it

You can never be too careful on a forum

Oh and Elton,
Do not explain the meaning of 'UC system,' I figured it out on my way to the UF system.

Edited by zync on Sep 07, 2006 at 11:55 AM GMT

Phil Bonner,

Whatever you say is

a) inconsistant with the fact that the moderators here have left this image on the board, so they probably think its legal

b) inconsistant with the fact that the internet is a global organization, that I post from France a picture that doesn't seem to be illegal in the US.

I wouldn't like to be in your place if you are sincere, because you will undoubtedly have to face more and more cases like this in the future.

But, then may be America should withdraw from the Internet and come back to the good old Monroe doctrine...

In clear, there isn't much you can do about this, so stop complaining about it...

lordarka wrote:
As a fellow UC Alumnus, and a product of a 'liberal' education, I have to wonder what school or department taught you to stick your head in the sand in the name of tolerance?

Intolerant or not, Phil has argued his points very well. Your abstract discussion about what it means to be 'tolerant' amounts to little in that context; in your world, we could not have meaningful discussion of any public policy, artistic or philosophical question or social more without silencing ourselves in the name of 'tolerance.'

Arka C.

As an aside he was talking to me, not Phil. I hope that does not change your message, but I do thank you for helping to get my point across. Discussion != intolerance.

fb101 wrote:
MSB1, what if you told us what you think of the picture, and if possible, why ?

Be glad to -- I'll do my best to keep this as short as possible...

Total nudity is not something we see out in the open, nor even is it commonplace in our homes. I have never visited a friend or neighbor where anyone inside of the home was nude. I have never been in a living room where there were nude family portraits. And the only nude people I have ever seen in the city were quickly arrested. I have seen some semi nudity at Mardi Gras in New Orleans, but that's a different story.... So nudity is out of the normal day to day operations of an American, normally set aside for a sexual situation.

In our society, the norm is, two nude people - not only touching but intertwined has strong sexual connotations to it.

I understand the "protection" thought (mother protecting the child), and being very exposed when nude, but there is no reason for both subjects to be nude. The mother being nude also creates a sense of vulnerability, instead of a strength to protect a nude child.

1. If it were a small baby, the photo would have worked. It is not totally unsual for a baby to be nude, and for a mother to breast feed her child.
2. It would have worked if the mother was wearing something... ANYTHING to break the sexual barrier between her and her MALE child.
3. It would have probably been more acceptable if the child was that age and female. That would not be an unusual situation.
4. If the son were wearing something... anything.. again, something to break that sexual tension between the two.

But again, in America, if there is a nude male and a nude female and they are sitting in each others laps, entangled together, entertwined, it is ususally seen as sexual. And for it to be a mother and her male child is revolting.
(Just a thought... take the mom out and replace her with a female of the son's same age -- or even his sister -- wouldnt you see that as sexual )

I know that in other countries, like France, nudity is more common. Not here.

Thank you MSB1. I thought so....

Vlad What do you mean ?

Edited by fb101 on Sep 07, 2006 at 07:47 PM GMT

MSB1 wrote:
fb101 wrote:
MSB1, what if you told us what you think of the picture, and if possible, why ?

Total nudity is not something we see out in the open, nor even is it commonplace in our homes. I have never visited a friend or neighbor where anyone inside of the home was nude. I have never been in a living room where there were nude family portraits.

It all depends who you know... My family often is totally nude when at home, alone, in summer. That's just me and my wife, with no kids, though. I often think what we gonna do when we'll have kids...

And some of my clients are proudly show their nude portraits at homes (bedroom, usually). And that's not California liberals... That's Michigan country side people. So your assumptions about average americans are WRONG.

I'm just having fun and answering zync's question

Phil Bonner wrote:
Once again the so called "liberals" who profess the loudest to be broad-minded, including the OP, have exhibited the least tolerance of others' views and have resorted to the worst personal insults and infantile name calling.

Grow up. If you want ot make a point about porn then leave the kids out of it. Use consenting adults, not kids who do not know any better, shouldn't know any better and shouldn't be exposed to this at such an early age in order to learn about it. It's sick.

It's photography like this and creepy people lie you that give photography a bad name.

So you say "grow up" and that us "liberals" are exhibiting a lack of tolerance and have resorted to personal insults and infantile name calling, so you finish youre sentence by calling us "creepy".

Way to make a point there.

Phil Bonner wrote:
fb101, you were correct when you said that children do not have their own will insofar as they are not yet intellectually and emotionally qualified to make such decisions for themselves.

That is why they call them "children below the age of consent." By U.S. law they cannot have sex, marry, vote, purchase alchohol, operate a motor vehicle etc. Therefore, I do not believe they are empowered to decide for themselves whether or not to pose and perform nude for public display.

IMO any adult who leads a child to perform nude or to otherwise pose nude for public display has committed an act of moral turpitude that is not mitgated in the least by any incidental artistic appearance of such a display.

fb101, I do not need your apology to validate my opinion of you or of your exploitation of juvenile sexuality.

Isnt it hillarious how a child turns into an adult overnight!? i mean one day im 17 and i dont have a single clue of how the world works and im incapable of making any decision for myself and the next im 18 and i can die for my country fighting a cause i dont beleive in, but i cant have a beer. its great! Please dont bring in that "age of concent" BS up. Ive made much stupider decisions once i was 23 than i did when i was 14.

Do you foget what it was like to be 17 and then 18? IT DOESNT CHANGE ANYTHING! If an 18 year old CHILD were to be naked with his mother this would be moraly ok, simply because it is legally ok?

"exploitation of juvenile sexuality"?!?!?!?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME! there lies the problem you seem to see it as sexuality, its not sexuality. I wont venture into trying to label it as anything, but sexual it, my dear sir, is not.

I just stumbled in here because I saw all the hits. Boy this thread has it all:
1) US v rest of world
2) Liberals v conservatives
3) Art v porn

Didn't we resolve these issues a long time ago? Along with resolving world hunger, peace in the middle east, and Coke v Pepsi.

My 2 cents are that if someone thinks the US is uptight about nudity or sexuality, they are probably looking at that from a very narrow point of view. Most of the rest of the world is far more conservative about sexuality than the US. Latin America, the Muslim world, and nearly all of East Asia is far more conservative. (And from my understanding, most of Africa would be considered more conservative also). So please stop being ignornant by calling US citizens puritans or uptight or conservative. It's a relative argument that shows your bias.

As for the original photograph, I see no porn AND no art - maybe some good technical photography though.

python2000 wrote:
I just stumbled in here because I saw all the hits. Boy this thread has it all:
1) US v rest of world
2) Liberals v conservatives
3) Art v porn

Didn't we resolve these issues a long time ago? Along with resolving world hunger, peace in the middle east, and Coke v Pepsi.

My 2 cents are that if someone thinks the US is uptight about nudity or sexuality, they are probably looking at that from a very narrow point of view. Most of the rest of the world is far more conservative about sexuality than the US. Latin America, the Muslim world, and nearly all of East Asia is far more conservative. (And from my understanding, most of Africa would be considered more conservative also). So please stop being ignornant by calling US citizens puritans or uptight or conservative. It's a relative argument that shows your bias.

As for the original photograph, I see no porn AND no art - maybe some good technical photography though.

As a latin american, i have to dissagree with you about us. We are SO SEXUAL. Its unbeleivable. We reak of sexuality and it oozes out of our very beings, it is our essence. We are sexuality. You always hear about the latin lover not the polish lover right? So there you go. We are not conservative at all! havent you ever seen all of our teenagers are prego?

Python wrote

I see no porn AND no art :

That's fine by me, but I'm curious as to why you don't see art here and, as a consequence, how do you define "art" ?

Christ, have we flogged this dead horse long enough? You all don't let this stuff go I'm going to post a naked picture of myself. You'll be sorry then!

Sony wrote:
Christ, have we flogged this dead horse long enough? You all don't let this stuff go I'm going to post a naked picture of myself. You'll be sorry then!

Are you over 18 or is that going to be a child picture?

Anything can be called "art" by it's creator. Good art appeals to our finer instincts and is uplifting. It has universal eternal appeal. Bad art or shock art provokes our base instincts and is repulsive and degrading.

Guess which category this falls into?

Latinos may be hot but they are also are very family-oriented and protective of their children. I cannot imagine this type of shock "art" having much popular appeal in Latin America.

WOW. 246 posts. fb101, I believe we have a record! Congrats!

WOW. 246 posts and 31 pages! fb101, I believe we have a record! Congrats!

Certainly not my fault. I pleade not guilty