december: I don’t think it’s the people that are being pounded in this thread so much as their intolerance. In other words, since they object to nudity, that obligates everyone to do without it. You don’t see nudists/naturists trying to force people to take their clothes off; but you almost always see textilists trying to force people to get dressed. Sure, people have the right to their own opinions; but when they start forcing them on others while refusing to allow those others to return the “favor”, you get a philosophical contradiction. I cannot say that since I think nudity is okay, then everyone is obligated to take their clothes off. However, textilists do say that since they think nudity is wrong, then everyone is obligated to put clothes on.
That’s the difference.
It isn’t about wearing clothes or not. It’s about forcefully imposing your particular viewpoint upon others without their consent. Acceptors of nudity rarely do this. Condemnators of nudity almost always do this.
We all know what the real criteria is here. If it makes you horny, it’s smut; if it doesn’t, it’s art.
December:
Those who objected to the works of art in question threatened retaliation if they were not supressed. The OP implied that there might be protests if the nude painting wasn’t suppressed; those who objected to the Poseidon statue threatened to withdraw convention business that the city had been counting on.
Sure, the objecters were acting well within their legal rights, but they were violating the spirit of freedom of expression, and abusing their rights and such power as they had. They forced an unpleasant descision onto the local officials and were clearly being bigger assholes than those officials would have been if they had refused to suppress the art.
I live in the town even sven is talking about, and the problem comes in the fact that this seminar pumps thousands of dollars into the economy… and when we have to fight larger cities to even get concerts and good theater, every cent helps. When I saw a picture in the paper of Poseidon done up in slacks, button up shirt and tie I was furiously angry… what made me happy was there was an arguement going on in the picture between the fundies (it was a christian home schooling group) and some local folks that worked in the area.
Me, I think that clothing something like that is a complete failure of the learning process.
And money is a much more effective weapon than H-bombs and guns, I can assure you.
Basically, just chiming in my opinion that a naked person isn’t smut, and never has been smut until the modern era… sadly, most folks don’t get it.
Force comes in more ways than violence. Getting laws passed against nude beaches, for example, forces people who use that beach to wear clothes. Textilists are always trying to close nude beaches, but I’ve never heard of nudists/naturists trying to close down a textilist beach. In the case cited by the OP, I think squeels beat me to your answer.
No, no, no…if it makes me horny, it’s art. If it makes you horny, it’s smut.
No, if you are a pastor and a fundie, anything that shows any part of a females body is smut. Apparently.
Don’t ya know?
I’ve even been told at the (former) churches picnic, “No short shorts or revealing tops for the ladies.”
Why? The men might get aroused.
And if they DO, its the Woman’s fault!
Yes, I am serious. Sigh.
