I have no problem taking my sons to a museum that features nudes. If they have questions, they know they can ask me anything (and, boy, have they). If we’re out and we see a nude or semi-nude body, we don’t cover their eyes or cluck our tongues. It’s the human body and it’s a thing of beauty, not shame.
**
Interesting. You do realize, don’t you, that our society’s exaggerated sheltering of children is a fairly recent development?
In the past, children learned very quickly about sex. Most of the time, they slept in the same room as their parents, and married siblings. They saw farm animals mating, and girls often helped their mothers give birth. The concept of shielding even a very young child from knowledge of sex would have been laughable.
Young children also were not sheilded from sexual art. Providing a link to what I found with a quick Yahoo search of "cathedral sexual images " would violate SDMB policy. I suggest you do the search just for pure entertainment value.) Some of the images on cathedrals include sex with animals (involving enormous male genitalia,) self-fellatio, and varied and creative sexual positions between humans worthy of *Hustler. * I’ve seen one image, which, to put it as clinically as possible, involving a snake crawling between the legs of a woman.
Mind you, these images are on the outside of cathedrals, carved into the stone, visable to all passersby. The purpose was that the faithful would know what sexual acts were forbidden by Church law. (“If you’re doing this, you’re doing it wrong.”) The titilating images also had the added benefit of making pedestrians stop in their tracks, and possibly be persuaded by a friendly priest out front to go inside.
Even earlier than Christian cathedral art, public mosaics, statues, and carvings celebrated sex in many cultures. Phallic art is almost ubiquitous in ancient times. In the ruins of Pompeii, for example, is an image of Zeus weighing his enormous penis on a scale.
Isn’t this “vulgar” and “indecent?” Shouldn’t we finish the work of some earlier purists and deface these images entirely before some poor child sees them? (Some of these images are clumisily rendered, so they can’t even “hide” behind artistic merit.)
And how did the children in these cities react to what they saw around them? (Still see, actually, in the examples of the cathedrals.) The Catholic Church seems to have thought that viewing them would be beneficial to their characters.
So now, let me ask you: How have children so apprieciably changed to need sheltering from sexual images? Could it be that our society just has a different opinion on the mental frailty of children? Why do you think our culture demands sexual ignorance from them? Do you think there has been any benefit to it?
Ok…Daniel
Googled “obscenity laws minors”
I figured Nevada state laws would be pretty lenient and in your favor, but I was wrong, not once, but twice. Alaska, on the other hand, does not have any obscenity laws.
I never posted that children had control of “what you view”, it’s what they are subjected to that is variously regulated from state to state, county to county, city to city.
I never said myself or my children had the right to control the content of Newsweek. Newsweek is there for me to purchase if I want to look at it, not Newsweek looking for me to look at their magazine if they feel the need to make me or my children view it. This is what differs magazines from shock artists.
I noticed that I should have posted - “The laws protecting minors on the other hand, does have some bearing on your viewpoints, state laws prevailing.”
Lissa, I realize there is much art out there depicting sexual (and vulgar) situations from past and present. I also realize that children can handle visualizing some art or situations, but it depends on their maturity and type of art/situation. I am not an over-sheltering parent, but I despise a shock artist trying to determine for me and my children when to view the example that I gave to you. I don’t think you and I are that far off in viewpoint. Some people feel that society should be viewed and treated as 100% adults and not acknowledging that children are a part of the society or feel that they should be treated as adults in their eyes.
Along with the mating live births of animals (no problem with minors witnessing those), farms also had machinery that has maimed and killed minors in the past, and that happened quite a bit in the past until more farmers (parents) started paying more attention to their children’s ability/maturity to handle same equipment. Is that over-protecting as well?
I get the impression that some of you think that I am against tasteless, vulgar and indecent art. I’m not. I’m just against subjecting it to minors in an open, public place that requires no admission and put there without warning in the public so parents are not allowed to take (or not take) appropriate steps to make decisions on viewing said art. Museum art, cathedral art, et al. is fine by me where it’s at. I expect it to be there and I can decide if my children can go there to view it or not.
**
But why didn’t our ancestors consider this a factor-- that their child might be harmed by what he saw on the walls of the cathedral? There was no line drawn for maturity. Children were not considered any more “fragile” than adults.
**
But in the example of the cathedral carvings, isn’t the Catholic Church then a “shock artist?”
This debate makes me think of the Hollywood Hayes Code. During the time the Code was in force, movies were scrubbed clean of any material which would offend a young child. Earlier on in our history, books were censored to the same level. The Comstock Act censored the US Mail of anything that the highly prudish Comstock found obscene.
The idea of reducing everyone to what’s considered “safe” for a child is unfair. It’s ultimately the parents’ responsibility, and I don’t think that anyone should expect the world to be re-ordered to protect them from the “offensive” when “offensive” is such a relative term.
**
No. There’s a distinct difference between measures for a child’s actual physical safety and censorship out of a dubious fear for their psychological well-being.
Besides machinery accidents, children saw incredibly violent acts during public executions. (They were well-attended events, considered "fun for the whole family.) I’d imagine that the sight of a human being being burned alive is one which would stick with you for a while. Besides burnings, there were hangings, beheadings, brandings, whippings, and the greusome spectacle of drawing-and-quartering. (Accompanied, usually, by castration.)
What children see more than the art is their parents’ reaction to it. If, when confronted by an obscene piece of art, the parent is nonchalant, the child is likely to think no more of it. However, if the parent recacts strongly or tries to sheild them from it, the child’s curiosity is aroused. What forbidden fruit is the parent trying to hide from them?
The price of taking a child out into the world is that the child may see things you’d rather they didn’t. At any time, someone may swear in front of them, tell a racist joke, fart, blaspheme, fondle their significant other, wear “indecent” clothing, or act like a Jerry Springer guest. It’s the parents’ responsibility to see to it that the child is prepared to meet the world, and to openly discuss what they see.
Depending on how many years you go back when you are discussing ancestry, the line was probably drawn for reasons that most adults were illiterate as well as children, hence the cathedral art…I think you pointed this out in an earlier post. If you go much further back in time, infanticide and sacrifices of children were also practiced in some civilizations…I don’t think that was in the children’s favor…it’s debatable if they were considered fragile (not resistive - easy to sacrifice) or not (take your sacrifice like an adult).
**
No…again, it was probably the second most effective way (speech being 1st) to communicate to it’s congregation (different compared to the open public that shock artists subject themselves to) who were probably illiterate.
**
I too object reducing everyone as being treated like children.
It is still the parent’s responsibility, when choosing items that can be offensive to children and control it within the household. I’m not asking for any objectionable material to be banned, I’m just asking that the material not be displayed in the open public, free of charge, viewable from the street. Things were more controlled back then, and I also disagree with the practice of “scrubbing” film or other material as well to suit the children; just have that material away from open public instead.
Actually, I think they are intertwined…governing bodies in many countries eventually ruled out open public executions for children and adults alike. Was there an outcry from the public back then to leave executions as is, or did they begin to feel that public executions were becoming unacceptable “civilized behavior” (i.e. - psychologically damaging)? Of course, there are still some countries that still support public executions, but are the children from these countries better off psychologically? I doubt it.
**
I can’t convincingly fake my emotion to my kids on the spot when confronted…that’s not right. I will tell them how I feel. You are right though that they would be more curious if I try to hide something from their sight, but then I would not be a good parent if I just act like things should be normal when they aren’t. I had called out another parent for his objectionable statement that he told to my oldest son at a hockey rink on this thread. My son learned from me how to confront without gettting violent or slinking away. In a way, that parent was the shock artist who practiced his objectionable “art” once. There is a parallel I’ve noticed between him and Boisvert since I reread my OP in that thread.
**
Perhaps I didn’t convey my point clearly. What I meant was that sexual display was not considered harmful to children, whatever the purpose.
However, if there was a statue on a modern street corner of a man having sex with a donkey, you’d object to your child seeing it. In this case, the purpose of the image could be the same as when it was was used on the outside walls of the cathedral: an artist may be using it as an example of sin. In our modern time, it wouldn’t matter. The sexual content would negate the message, rendering it unsuitable for young eyes.
How is the modern child really harmed? He may not even understand the significance of what he’s seeing. All I’m saying is that children are not necessarily as psychologically fragile as we treat them. It seems unreasonable to me to ask that art be hidden away, when it hasn’t been demonstrated to me that the child will be in any way harmed if it is not.
When it comes to executions and the public, IIRC, the reason that executions were moved indoors was because that the apparati of execution was changed from “outdoor” style to “indoor” types. For example, hanging needs a bit more room than the average building can supply, and beheading leaves unsightly stains on the rug, so it was necessary, most of the time, to do these things outdoors. When the states changed from these methods to those like the gas chamber and electric chairs, the move was natural. (Of course, there’s more to it than that, but that’s another thread.)
I’m relatively sure, however, that concerns for the mental well-being of young witnesses wasn’t the reason. There was, and still is, a large contingent of folks who believe(d) that public execution is beneficial as an object lesson to the populace.
I will never forget this. I was in about the 4th grade when the entire family went to dinner at a friends house. (THey ran the SPCA) I went into their bathroom and they had a painting of a man and a boy naked in the painting. The scene was in a bathroom and the man was shaving and the kid was trying to do the same. It was then I learned that men had pubic hair. Had I not seen that art…who knows when I would have known??? My parents didn’t tell me squat!
Yeticus, I lost track of this debate a few days ago. My apologies for not pointing out earlier that, while you were wrong twice: first when you thought you were wrong, and second when you decided you were wrong in the wrong direction. Let’s look at what the Nevada state law says about the intersection of obscenity laws and minors:
Ordinary adults, got it? Unless I’m building my nude statue deliberately across the street from a kindergarten and putting a sign in the nude sculpture’s hand saying, “Hey kiddies, want to go for a ride?”, we don’t judge obscenity by whether it harms children.
An entirely different matter is whether something is harmful to minors. Let’s look at Nevada’s definition:
It’d be very difficult to show that a nude is predominantly appealing to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors. Even if you did, you’d also have to prove that it’s without serious artistic value, also very difficult to prove.
The ONLY consideration the law has for restricting adult freedom of expression in order to protect kids is that IF it’s prurient (shameful, etc.) AND it’s without serious artistic etc. value, AND if most adults around think kids should be protected from it, you can get in trouble.
But wait – what can you get in trouble for? Here are the only relevant sections of that ordinance you posted:
So it’s only when you’re distributing harmful material that you can get in trouble – either when you distribute it to a minor, or when you exhibit it for distribution to an adult.
What does distribution mean?
Please, please, please explain now how a nude statue in someone’s yard can be restricted under Nevada law. It’s not being distributed, so the “harmful to minors” business is totally irrelevant. And the obscenity laws only take children into consideration if it’s clearly designed for the kiddies.
You were wrong, all right. Just not in the way you thought you were wrong.
Daniel
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel…
I have no problem with nude statues…where did you get that idea? That’s not “shock art”. A bloody statue of Christ in a coital position with mother Mary is. What would “ordinary adults” think about that?
Lissa,
You make great points. Times have changed were the unacceptable becomes acceptable, and vice versa. The cathedral art should stay right where it is because of it’s history. But if you make a replica of it (sex with a donkey) on a street corner, then it becomes an issue with authorities as well as the general public. The cathedral art was meant to convey what sin was in their day. If someone made a replica of that on a street corner today and explained to the general public that “This is a sin.”, would that be acceptable art, or shock? In this day and age where a current church wouldn’t advocate making a replica of this art for it’s congregation because they can convey more effectively through lectures and literature, I doubt that the artist of this day would have an easy time explaining that this is the best way to convey what sin is, citing that he was inspired by some antiquated cathedral art. He’s better off making the replica in his private studio.
Otherwise, if we claim that since things were acceptable in past, then what’s stopping us from starting up public executions, infanticide, and human sacrifices again, citing that “We’ve done it before, why can’t we allow it again”? I know, it seems to be a double standard, but that’s the current track that a majority of our civilization (country) is taking.
Who knows how this art will be viewed 100 years from now? More acceptable or less acceptable? For all we know, there maybe “Sex with a donkey” lightposts lining main streets across the country. Depends on the ever changing viewpoints of our civilization over time as a whole.
How is this art for ya? Gunther von Hagens makes educational models for anatomy programs. He is best known for his controversial plastinated whole-body art exhibit “Korperwelten”
The skinless bodies are real humans and are posed as living people in action. The humans he uses for his exhibit “donated” their bodies to science. One figure’s skin flies out behind it like a cape.
Is this art? Is this violated dignity? Should children see this?
I think it would be controversial in 2003 and in 3003
Just in case you are not aware of the process…
Plastination (polymer preserved) The body is washed and soaked in chemicals such as acetone. The acetone drives water from the body tissue, readying it for impregnantion with the silicone polymer. A catalyst is then rubbed into the skin and a 2 day hardening process begins, working its way through the tissue preserving it for eternity. It takes about 1 year to make a human into this gumby-like state.
Maybe it’s art, maybe it’s not.
It’s not for YOU, Isabelle, to decide what I would expose my hypothetical offspring to.
You are right. To each his own when it comes to choosing “what is art and what is not”
I really want to see the cathedral that is made entirely of human bones but I guess that might repulse some.
Young children are rarely offended by anything.
The only things I’d say very young people are almost universally upset by are suffering and pain. When they realize that another creature is in pain, children are often quite empathetic.
Sex? They don’t care.
yeticus, yeticus, yeticus. Your patronizing posts toward me began when I criticized conflict of interest’s statement that s/he had the right to determine when junior asked questions about the nude body; conflict made that statement in apparent response to the nude sculpture debate THAT WAS IN THE OP. My apologies for assuming that your patronizing 'tude toward me had anything to do with the OP.
That said, my basic point doesn’t change, nor does your basic wrongness about Nevada’s laws. You mentioned two separate laws: obscenity, and harmful to minors statutes. In the case of the bloody fucking Jesus statue (BFJ from now on), I don’t see how either statute applies in the manner you suggest (i.e., how either statute takes children’s sensibilities into accout).
Under the obscenity statutes, you must judge BFJ by ADULT standards, UNLESS it’s designed specifically to be shown to kids. Nothing you described about BFJ suggests it was designed for kids; therefore, whether it offends their sensibilities is entirely immaterial.
And the only things mentioned being illegal under the harmful-to-minors statutes involve the transfer of property. If BFJ is merely being displayed, without intent to transfer ownership (or sell viewing rights or anything), then there’s no chance whatsoever that harmful-to-minors statutes apply. Again, we’re not taking children’s tender eyeballs into consideration here.
There is, of course, a debate about whether BFJ has any artistic merit, and prosecution would have the very difficult task of proving that it didn’t if it wanted to convict on obscenity grounds. But that’s immaterial. The debate I’m having with you, the one in which you make ad hominems like suggesting that my lack of children means I don’t understand the issues, is whether we must take children’s sensibilities into consideration when restricting the expressive freedom of adults.
Not in Conflict seemed to believe that when it came to nude statues, we do need to pander to the youngest common denominator. You disagree re: nude statues, but think that when it comes to BFJs, we need to pander to the youngest common denominator. You guys disagree on the specifics, but you’re both equally wrong on the principle.
Daniel
TVAA nailed it.
As a child, the only response I had at nudity and sex was to giggle uncontrollably. Annoying, perhaps, but harmless.
Violence and pain? Nightmares for a week.
That’s not to say we should censor these things-common sense should prevail.
This would suggest that exhibiting BFJ is subject NRS 201.257 and should be judged by the adult community with respect to minors. Sounds pretty much like parenting (pandering to the youngest common denominator) to me whether you like it or not. Also, I made the example more harsh (BFJ) than your “boys with nipples” example because the question was not that taxing, and did not require the litmus test of the law. Sorry if you weren’t able to follow my posts.
The new question that comes to mind is in the title: EXHIBITION AND SALE OF OBSCENE MATERIAL TO MINORS…Does it mean that both exhibition and sale must be achieved to break the law (your viewpoint), or that the two separate actions are grouped together to show congruency in separate criminal actions (my viewpoint)?
BTW…it was one ad hominem; get over it already. Your condescension towards Conflict of Interest warranted that A.H. because you blasted COI’s differing viewpoints in a condescending manner and interjected an unrealistic solution to the problem that many parents regularly face - “If a child can formulate a question, he or she is ready to hear your honest answer to the question.” Ever explained the suicide of a relative/friend to a child when you don’t have all the answers to that question yourself? Or what motivates a person to make a BFJ?, etc.
Yeticus, you’re focusing on the wrong part of that quote:
Can you prove that BFJ predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors, and has no serious artistic value?
Show me in your quote where anything is described as being illegal. Or show me the relevant crime from anywhere else in your cite. A definition does not a crime make; all you’re doing is citing a definition.
Daniel
Dammit, I wish I could edit posts; THIS was the part I wanted to quote from you.
I backed up my viewpoint by posting the actual real live crimes from the statute. I’ll do it again, for your convenience:
YOUR viewpoint, that some relevant definition of “exhibition” appears in the ordinance, is mistaken. Given that this is exactly the point I made in my previous post, I’m surprised that you maintain that viewpoint, without providing any contradicting evidence.
When they talk about “exhibition,” they’re talking about #2 in the quote above.
Just so we’re completely clear, here are the rest of the misdemeanors mentioned in this ordinance:
Clear enough now?
Daniel