TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why is it OK to show THIS, but not nudity??
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Why is it OK to show THIS, but not nudity??

I was checking my Yahoo Mail and they had a front-page news story on the new bombings in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Note the photo on the left, where the guy's blood is dripping from his face.

Why is it ok to show this extremely disturbing photo of a real guy bleeding (on Yahoo/NBC/Reuters, the biggest mass media channel), but god forbid if there is a picture of a naked breast?

Re: Why is it OK to show THIS, but not nudity??

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd I was checking my Yahoo Mail and they had a front-page news story on the new bombings in Iraq: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq Note the photo on the left, where the guy's blood is dripping from his face. Why is it ok to show this extremely disturbing photo of a real guy bleeding (on Yahoo/NBC/Reuters, the biggest mass media channel), but god forbid if there is a picture of a naked breast?

Christian conservative values + Schadenfreude.

Yeah you can thank the Christian concervative right for that...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Yeah you can thank the Christian concervative right for that...

No offense guys, but I think this stuff was censored long before there was grumbling about the "Christian conservative right".

In Europe it's more acceptable to show nudity vs. violence, but in the states it seems to be the opposite. Don't ask me why, but I don't think the reason lies squarely on some random bible-thumper's shoulders.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka No offense guys, but I think this stuff was censored long before there was grumbling about the "Christian conservative right".

Do you mean back in the day when those ideologues were still burning people at the stake for heresy?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Do you mean back in the day when those ideologues were still burning people at the stake for heresy?

I blame Hester Prynne!

It's just a perversion of values. Like all other human beings, Christian conservatives would find themselves thinking constantly about sex (it is, afterall, human nature) yet they also have it in their heads that sex is inherently immoral. Therefore, they find themselves in the absurd situation where they're constantly obsessing about something that they've taught themselves to find completely repulsive and end up with a moral system that reflects as much. They spend a disproportionate amount of their time thinking about sex compared to other issues of morality, hence their disproportionate response to, say, the Superbowl nipple-slip.

In short, if they didn't think about sex so much, they might actually be able to focus their moral compass towards the things - like the acts of war depicted in that article - that are genuinely worthy of moral condemnation. So keep your minds out of the gutter, you filthy Christians!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka No offense guys, but I think this stuff was censored long before there was grumbling about the "Christian conservative right".

Yes, but it was not censored long before the religious conservatives existed

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It's just a perversion of values. Like all other human beings, Christian conservatives would find themselves thinking constantly about sex (it is, afterall, human nature) yet they also have it in their heads that sex is inherently immoral. Therefore, they find themselves in the absurd situation where they're constantly obsessing about something that they've taught themselves to find completely repulsive and end up with a moral system that reflects as much. They spend a disproportionate amount of their time thinking about sex compared to other issues of morality, hence their disproportionate response to, say, the Superbowl nipple-slip. In short, if they didn't think about sex so much, they might actually be able to focus their moral compass towards the things - like the acts of war depicted in that article - that are genuinely worthy of moral condemnation. So keep your minds out of the gutter, you filthy Christians!

Dood...Catholic girls are AWESOME!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Yes, but it was not censored long before the religious conservatives existed

Explain. Examples? I think our society is, by and large, a lot more liberal about this stuff than it has ever been before (minus maybe a few small windows here and there).

You know why the porn industry is booming in America...nudity is outlawed oooo breast hide your eyes

quote:

Originally posted by InterMilan31 You know why the porn industry is booming in America...nudity is outlawed oooo breast hide your eyes

I smell a conspiracy theory!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I smell a conspiracy theory!

me dos Ron Jeremy, Jenna Jameson, Dirk Digler all in the CIA I tell ya

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It's just a perversion of values. Like all other human beings, Christian conservatives would find themselves thinking constantly about sex (it is, afterall, human nature) yet they also have it in their heads that sex is inherently immoral. Therefore, they find themselves in the absurd situation where they're constantly obsessing about something that they've taught themselves to find completely repulsive and end up with a moral system that reflects as much. They spend a disproportionate amount of their time thinking about sex compared to other issues of morality, hence their disproportionate response to, say, the Superbowl nipple-slip. In short, if they didn't think about sex so much, they might actually be able to focus their moral compass towards the things - like the acts of war depicted in that article - that are genuinely worthy of moral condemnation. So keep your minds out of the gutter, you filthy Christians!

I think that this is a pretty misanthropic way of explaining the behaviour (although I think that you're right wrt. a lot of Christians). Another reason for the meddling in other people's business could be that Christians are by their faith required to try to convert others to their faith. If they also think that nudity/sex is to be avoided by faithful Christians, clearly preventing others from enjoying sex is a step on the way to converting them.

Wasn't America much more liberal on nudity back in the 70s? I swear there were more porn stores, porn theaters, and just overall more tits everywhere. Now it's as if showing tits is so bad, children are going to cry. Are children really going to be upset and become unpure? I disctinctly remember showing my schoolmate my penis in exchange for her boobs in 2nd grade and nothing provoked me to do so other than the curiosity of what lied beneath that shirt. I for one have been taking a stance against this conservative grip on nudity...by running around nude in public (this actually started in 4th grade.)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Explain. Examples? I think our society is, by and large, a lot more liberal about this stuff than it has ever been before (minus maybe a few small windows here and there).

I was just pointing out (in a rather obscure way) that the religious right has always existed in the US, more or less. In many european countries we have passed that stage (if that is politically correct to say? ).

And yeah obviously you are a lot more liberal now than you were in for example the beginning of the 20th century...

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Wasn't America much more liberal on nudity back in the 70s? I swear there were more porn stores, porn theaters, and just overall more tits everywhere. Now it's as if showing tits is so bad, children are going to cry. Are children really going to be upset and become unpure?

Hehe, I remember a debate I had in a class in Canada about tits and children. And pretty much everyone except me thought it would be aweful to even show the mum's tits to her kids!!! To me that is a big

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Hehe, I remember a debate I had in a class in Canada about tits and children. And pretty much everyone except me thought it would be aweful to even show the mum's tits to her kids!!! To me that is a big

hahahah.

People think it's awful to see tits? Now seeing tits with tan lines, that's awful! Chicks need to tan and if they can't walk around in public to allow the both entire boobies to soak up the sun, then America is committing a gross act of immorality.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It's just a perversion of values. Like all other human beings, Christian conservatives would find themselves thinking constantly about sex (it is, afterall, human nature) yet they also have it in their heads that sex is inherently immoral. Therefore, they find themselves in the absurd situation where they're constantly obsessing about something that they've taught themselves to find completely repulsive and end up with a moral system that reflects as much. They spend a disproportionate amount of their time thinking about sex compared to other issues of morality, hence their disproportionate response to, say, the Superbowl nipple-slip. In short, if they didn't think about sex so much, they might actually be able to focus their moral compass towards the things - like the acts of war depicted in that article - that are genuinely worthy of moral condemnation. So keep your minds out of the gutter, you filthy Christians!

Thank you, I wrote something similar on the Toronto forum several months ago, and blamed the ignorant,immature and hippocritical attitudes towards sexuality in the U.S. and Canada on the high levels of sexual assaults / rapes in those countries by people who have failed to form a healthy attitude towards sexuality, and therefore force themselves on unwilling partners because they are incapable of having mature consentual relationships. I would suspect that many rapes especially gang rapes are by men who are insecure and try to prove their "manliness" by forcing themselves on women who are unconsenting. And look who considers themselves the Great Sex Educator: The Catholic Church - they really set a good example.

If u dont know, the most essential rule of Christian religion is about love among people (well, not about the sexual love ). So they are strongly against violence. Sexual sins are at the lower taves of the moral ladder. In fact, the Christian prohibit only "free" sex, so the loyality to the partner is important and Christian definitely do not consider sex as something immoral. Of course, are against the porn industry, but it is immoral for sure...(even in the terms of wordly-minded morality)The hatred, lie, offence or even killing are considered as far more capital sins than sex. So next time if u want to shame something, learn as much as u can about it and dont say just ur feelings or junky thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by SyPsych0 If u dont know, the most essential rule of Christian religion is about love among people (well, not about the sexual love ). So they are strongly against violence. Sexual sins are at the lower taves of the moral ladder. In fact, the Christian prohibit only "free" sex, so the loyality to the partner is important and Christian definitely do not consider sex as something immoral. Of course, are against the porn industry, but it is immoral for sure...(even in the terms of wordly-minded morality)The hatred, lie, offence or even killing are considered as far more capital sins than sex. So next time if u want to shame something, learn as much as u can about it and dont say just ur feelings or junky thoughts.

You may be right that Christianity is about those things, but you're apparently not living in the same world that I am if you think that Christians aren't trying to influence sexual relationships throughout the world and that they care about violence more than sex. It doesn't surprise me though, because the organized churches aren't really about the philosophies they are supposed to be teaching. They're just tax-free corporations in the business of controlling minds through fear.

Many Christians in America have no problem with gay bashing, which is a violent crime based on sexual preferences, because "gays are evil and are going to hell anyhow."

Also, how frequently does the church make a big deal about violence, war, or even violent entertainment compared to it's onslaught against all things sexual.

Lastly, explain why porn is so immoral. Would porn be OK if it were only done between married couples? If so, there are a few out there that only work with their boyfriends/girlfriends or spouses. Or do you have something against voyeurism?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Lastly, explain why porn is so immoral. Would porn be OK if it were only done between married couples? If so, there are a few out there that only work with their boyfriends/girlfriends or spouses. Or do you have something against voyeurism?

Well some of it CERTAINLY is, but definitely not all of it!

who is anyone here, exectly, to say that it's ok to show nudity but not violence? And if anyone actually watches TV you would know that it's not all that christian-like and innocent as some would have you believe. even on WB11, My wife and kids, one tree hill, etc all have tons of sexual themes per episodes.

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto who is anyone here, exectly, to say that it's ok to show nudity but not violence? And if anyone actually watches TV you would know that it's not all that christian-like and innocent as some would have you believe. even on WB11, My wife and kids, one tree hill, etc all have tons of sexual themes per episodes.

*stands up*

Nudity and sexuality are subjective, meaning society can paint it taboo or lighten its tolerance on it. So a pair of breasts and kissing can either be interpreted as artistic/normal, or immoral/improper.

However, violence is hardly interpreted as subjective. If someone hits, kicks, bites, shoots, stabs, slaps, etc., it's going to hurt no matter what. Meanwhile, boobies and the act of making out are just not killing people.

So my thesis in supporting nudity over violence is that while interpretation of nudity is ambiguous and can go either way, interpretation of violence is largely objective and is obviously not a beneficial form of behavior, being that it's physically harmful and people generally prefer to promote health.

Ignoring violence is turning a blind eye on the real world.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.