ClubMix
Posts: 75
Joined: 9/20/2004
Status: offline
|
God, it took me for fucking ever to write this out, thanks to my shitty internet disconnecting me and forcing me to do it twice. Uhg. Back to the post...
I`m confused, I thought I`d tried to avoid the issue of minors other than to bring attention to the point that in an uncontrolled public environment you can not 100% say that there are no minors present.
Answer time!! (I like this sort of discourse!)
"Fair enough. What is your opinion of the gazillion homes now that have cabel or satellite television with a gazillion different channels that anyone - adult or minor - can surf and stumble upon any sort of naked or profane content? Should we ban them?"
Going back to the "fair warning" thing, no, I don`t think we should ban them. I`m not a prude, I don`t disdain explicit sexuality, I just disdain the idea of exposing somebody to it when they have not consented to being exposed to it. I firmly believe that warning labels should be affixed to material that contains explicit sexuality. I also firmly believe in the "Parental Control" system, where people can actually block their children from accessing programs that contain a level of sexuality that is more than they are comfortable with.
"Yes, Sex and the City showed full tit shots. Yes, NYPD Blue showed full ass shots. NYPD Blue had a disclaimer of "adult content and nudity" (an ABC station) , although Sex and the City did not (HBO). Disclosure or not, however, anyone could flip through channels and come across this stuff, and not by choice."
In my opinion the lack of warning is the problem, not the fact that there is explicit material to begin with.
"Do you consider exposed ass cheeks as socially unacceptable?"
As far as I have seen, it`s not really that socially unacceptable, when it`s put in the right context. If you go to the beach, there are hundreds of girls wearing thongs, and that would still be considered a regular beach, even if there are buttcheeks abound. But, if you went to a beach where hundreds of girls were lacking tops, it would be specially marked as a "Topless" or "Nude" beach. However, I do believe that if you walked into a bookstore wearing only a thong, you might run the risk of dealing with trouble.
"I appreciate this answer "my dear" lol. It really sums up what the issue is. It's time and place, apparently. And this is where our opinions diverge. For you, time and place determines whether it is sexy or offensive. Same body part, same image. A nipple can either be sexy, native (think National Geographic), medical, natural (breast feeding) or offensive. And quite honestly, I can not wrap my mind around this kind of thinking. I understand it is an issue for others. But even if I tried to make it an issue for myself, I could not. It all boils down to time and place, opinions and attitudes. There is no "act" being done. There is no "fluid" being emitted. There is no trauma being inflicted on anyone. What it boils down to is a nipple in the bedroom is acceptable, a nipple on the cover of National Geographic is acceptable, a nipple in a biology book is acceptable, a nipple to feed an infant is acceptable (to some but not all), but a stand-alone, just hanging out there nipple for someone to see, is offensive. That is how I am seeing this, which is why it makes me uncomfortable to hang out, but it doesn't disturb me. There is no harm being done to anyone, other than to appear distasteful. I have suffered worse at ball games. Or in rush hour traffic!"
A nipple itself is not necessarily either an offensive or a sexual part. Considering the various functions of a nipple, I hardly think it can depend on much of anything other than time/place(context), and consent of exposee. Both are steps towards deciding if a nip is acceptable in a current situation. A nipple can be all of the things you`ve described, sexy, native, medical, nurturing, etc. For a contrasting example, a vagina has been more or less reduced to only a mechanic of sex and sexuality. Even on TV programs depicting women giving birth, the yoni itself is censored, because it is a sexual body part. A penis is more or less the same, with a few variations. With those two, it`s easy to say "showing a penis/vagina is XXX behavior and must be treated as such", since they typically pertain to sex and sexuality. A nipple is more difficult to classify. If not based on context of exposure and consent of exposee, how exactly, do you measure when it`s appropriate to show a nipple, and when it isn`t? Is it always appropriate, no matter what? Always acceptable when there are no minors around? Is it never appropriate, ever?
A nipple shown to a non-consenting stranger in the hopes of rousing the sexual desires of another human with said exposure is a pretty much guaranteed offense. You cannot, without a doubt, say that exposing someone to a bared breast without their consent is not detrimental to them. Sexuality is a very twisted and fractured thing in our society, an unpredicted variable. Say you pick a man who was forced to "breast feed" on a distant relative when he was a child to flash your nipple at. Or you show a recovering sex offender an unsolicited nipple, and cause a falter in her treatment. Or you just happen to show someone who simply does not want to see your nipple, and leave them feeling well, "ocularly raped"? I personally would feel rather violated knowing that I just played a part in a stranger's sexual indulgence, and had been forced to provided arousal, despite my lack of consent. I don`t see how any of the three outcomes are acceptable risks to force other people to take.
...Wow, that was a long post.
|
RE: Semi-public task part 2! - 
Profile
~ 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread