• Finland about to get stamps with homoerotic motifs, small amount of protests arise
    218 replies, posted
So far the arguments against me are "You're a robot/a queer fucking loser who goes on deviantart" and "You want to show hardcore porn to kids!" Are you guys fucking serious? This is what you have to say about someone questioning the prudence of our current society? And you guys HONESTLY think that's a good approach to the argument? you would fit right in in the 1920's when a lady showing her kneecaps was boner inducing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;44625770]Only in SH would someone look at classical art depicting the female form, then compare it to a mustachioed, cigarette-smoking leather-clad man straddling a restrained nude man with his head buried in leather-man's crotch and say 'yup, that's equivalent'. I guess by that logic Michelangelo's David is indistinguishable from Smell The Glove, right?[/QUOTE] That "classical art depicting the female form" was the pornography of the renaissance/baroque era. Many people had that shit commissioned just to look at naked girls. There is a famous quote from Michelangelo IIRC that bashes the Venus of Urbino for being essentially porn. In many of those paintings you will find odd animals or symbols which means nothing to you but at the time, many of the seemingly random animals/fruits/plants etc... were symbols of promiscuity (Small dogs, rabbits, peaches, roses etc...) In the end it comes down to the renaissance idea of finding the human body beautiful rather than shameful. Michelangelo's David and Donatello's David are both sexualized male forms. What is the difference between showing a naked, sexualized marble sculpture and a sexualized postage note? What is the difference between the man on the stamp and the women in those pictures? None. They are all sexualized depictions of the human body.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;44626745]Personally? I think that the line between the naked body as depicted in art, and titillation - which does not necessarily even require nudity - is obvious to just about everyone, including you. Luckily, however, we live in the West, and thus can have an argument about this, and even do wonderful things like compromise. I know that means you won't get everything you want, but that's part of living in a civilised society. Along with not plastering pornography everywhere just to prove a point.[/QUOTE] Is it obvious? Because there's a lot of debate that is obvious In fact, how is it obvious? How is hard wired into our biology? For it to be obvious, it MUST be hardwired into our biology. Why? Because we can see many other cultures didn't feel this "obvious" way about the body. So we know for a fact that the way we feel about nudity is cultured and caused by society. So then, how is it a hardwired function of us to be ashamed of our nudity?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44626685]so what's the line then, tell me about it, describe it, where does it begin, where does it end, what's include, what's off limits, what's not?[/QUOTE] It's hazy, subjective, open to personal interpretation, and varies from one societal context to another, but recognized as real to some degree by [i]every functional adult[/i]. Recognizing context and different degrees of appropriateness in otherwise broadly similar acts is part of being a normal member of society. Hence why nude art is fine, and streaking is not. Hence why Michelangelo's David is considered art, but public sex will get you arrested. There are differences whether you act willfully ignorant of them or not, and not all expressions of sexuality are considered the same.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44626760]Is it obvious? Because there's a lot of debate that is obvious In fact, how is it obvious? How is hard wired into our biology? For it to be obvious, it MUST be hardwired into our biology. Why? Because we can see many other cultures didn't feel this "obvious" way about the body. So we know for a fact that the way we feel about nudity is cultured and caused by society. So then, how is it a hardwired function of us to be ashamed of our nudity?[/QUOTE] We are not other cultures.
I literally cannot see the "porn" in the chosen pictures. There's two clearly gay guys posed, one naked and one not. We know nudity alone isn't porn, so that's not the porn. There's a head possibly being used as a bonertable or something, but it is disembodied, because art, and there's just an ass there. No sex acts or dicks in sight...so there's no porn there either. Remind me again why this is pornographic/ obscene/ "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" grade material? It's just gay dudes posing.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44626760]Is it obvious? Because there's a lot of debate that is obvious In fact, how is it obvious? How is hard wired into our biology? For it to be obvious, it MUST be hardwired into our biology. Why? Because we can see many other cultures didn't feel this "obvious" way about the body. So we know for a fact that the way we feel about nudity is cultured and caused by society. So then, how is it a hardwired function of us to be ashamed of our nudity?[/QUOTE] Elaborating on this, the idea that nudity is shameful comes from the Catholic idea that the human body is sinful. The reason we have nudity in our art today is because artists of the Renaissance had the idea that the human body wasn't sinful and wanted to show it off.
Do you guys not look at history? Not care about what history shows us about these subjects or just think you know all together too well than to need to look at history? We have entire periods of art and human expression dealing with the naked form. It came as close to "plastering pornography everywhere just to prove a point" as it can come to, and those things were wrong? Or what? What are you guys saying? Look at the Greco - Roman societies and their art and then tell me there is an obvious, objective, factional line that we humans are hardwired to believe is "good" and anything past that is naturally shame inducing If people weren't told to be ashamed of their bodies and the nature of their own bodies, we would be a lot happier I bet. With a lot less stupid hangups.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44626749]So far the arguments against me are "You're a robot/a queer fucking loser who goes on deviantart" and "You want to show hardcore porn to kids!" Are you guys fucking serious? This is what you have to say about someone questioning the prudence of our current society? And you guys HONESTLY think that's a good approach to the argument? you would fit right in in the 1920's when a lady showing her kneecaps was boner inducing.[/QUOTE] Don't bitch about ad hominems when [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1388043&p=44625126&viewfull=1#post44625126]you're the one[/url] who came into this thread [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1388043&p=44625196&viewfull=1#post44625196]sounding off[/url] about how we're all ashamed. I'm not ashamed about the fact that I shit, but I wouldn't do it in the street. Frankly, you know this, I know you know this, and you know I know you know this, but really you just enjoy being awkward. I think I've fed you long enough, troll.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44626749]So far the arguments against me are [/QUOTE] How about 'You're deliberately being extremely obtuse by pretending that you don't see any difference between different expressions of sexuality, but aren't willing to take this logic to its ultimate and obviously ridiculous conclusion' But nice straw man.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;44626801]Don't bitch about ad hominems when you're the one who came into this thread sounding off about how we're all ashamed. I'm not ashamed about the fact that I shit, but I wouldn't do it in the street. Frankly, you know this, I know you know this, and you know I know you know this, but really you just enjoy being awkward. I think I've fed you long enough, troll.[/QUOTE] I'm a troll? Wow. I've never talked about shitting in the streets. I've literally only talked about the naked human body being something we're told, societally, to be ashamed about. I've responded to your every post with an argument, not a picture, not a quip, not an ad homenim, a god damn argument. And you have the gall to call me a troll because I just simply don't feel that the human body is something to be ashamed of? This thread is about showing the body, not taking a shit in the streets. If you can't see that you're trolling/being purposely obtuse, then that's on you, not me. [editline]23rd April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;44626806]How about 'You're deliberately being extremely obtuse by pretending that you don't see any difference between different expressions of sexuality, but aren't willing to take this logic to its ultimate and obviously ridiculous conclusion' But nice straw man.[/QUOTE] How are the images of naked tits less sexual than the stamps here? What makes which one what? But no, questioning these things and wanting you to explain the perceived "obvious" things that you're talking about is me being "deliberately obtuse"
The very fact that no one would have a problem with the David statue being on a stamp clearly shows that the naked male body isn't the problem. The sexual nature of the stamp is the problem.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44626906]The very fact that no one would have a problem with the David statue being on a stamp clearly shows that the naked human body isn't the problem. The sexual nature of the stamp is the problem.[/QUOTE] Graphic sex acts were perfectly acceptable and were found everywhere in the ancient world. Sexual depictions haven't always been so taboo.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44626906]The very fact that no one would have a problem with the David statue being on a stamp clearly shows that the naked male body isn't the problem. The sexual nature of the stamp is the problem.[/QUOTE] Bernini's David has a feather tickling David's ballsack and people are perfectly fine with that one
[QUOTE=Explosions;44626926]Graphic sex acts were perfectly acceptable and were found everywhere in the ancient world. Sexual depictions haven't always been so taboo.[/QUOTE] So was child sacrifice and slavery. What's your point?
[QUOTE=sgman91;44626939]So was child sacrifice and slavery. What's your point?[/QUOTE] Child sacrifice and slavery hurt people. A picture of two people fucking on some coin or a guy's ass on a stamp doesn't hurt anyone.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44626906]The very fact that no one would have a problem with the David statue being on a stamp clearly shows that the naked male body isn't the problem. The sexual nature of the stamp is the problem.[/QUOTE] That's societies problem isn't it? Or would you argue we are by nature ashamed of our forms as some others have? Frankly, we know we aren't because there's eras of culture where the sexual nature of things was fine. Then we have an entirely different era of art where the body was forbidden and something to be ashamed of that basically made porn that we today call art(baroque) I just don't get the view point I guess.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44626967]Child sacrifice and slavery hurt people. A picture of two people fucking on some coin or a guy's ass on a stamp doesn't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE] Way to take the point in a completely different direction all of a sudden. You said that if something happened in antiquity, then that gave it credence for happening today. I pointed to other things that also happened in antiquity that are obviously not acceptable today. The point being that whether something happened in ancient societies is irrelevant to the question of whether it should happen today.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44626939]So was child sacrifice and slavery. What's your point?[/QUOTE] why are those things equal in your mind? Why does that nudity go together with those ideas for you as equally despicable things that should be treated as relics of a forgotten age?
[QUOTE=catbarf;44626768]It's hazy, subjective, open to personal interpretation, and varies from one societal context to another, but recognized as real to some degree by [i]every functional adult[/i]. Recognizing context and different degrees of appropriateness in otherwise broadly similar acts is part of being a normal member of society. Hence why nude art is fine, and streaking is not. Hence why Michelangelo's David is considered art, but public sex will get you arrested. There are differences whether you act willfully ignorant of them or not, and not all expressions of sexuality are considered the same.[/QUOTE] So your answer to "why" is "because most like it that way". I am sorry but that's not a valid argument for anything ever.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44626999]That's societies problem isn't it? Or would you argue we are by nature ashamed of our forms as some others have? Frankly, we know we aren't because there's eras of culture where the sexual nature of things was fine. Then we have an entirely different era of art where the body was forbidden and something to be ashamed of that basically made porn that we today call art(baroque) I just don't get the view point I guess.[/QUOTE] Literally the same argument could be made for slavery: That's societies problem isn't it? Or would you argue we are by nature ashamed of slavery as some others have? Frankly, we know we aren't because there's eras of culture where slavery was fine. Then we have an entirely different era society where slavery was forbidden and something to be ashamed of that basically made slavery that we today call unacceptable. I just don't get the view point I guess.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44627025]Literally the same argument could be made for slavery: That's societies problem isn't it? Or would you argue we are by nature ashamed of slavery as some others have? Frankly, we know we aren't because there's eras of culture where slavery was fine. Then we have an entirely different era society where slavery was forbidden and something to be ashamed of that basically made slavery that we today call unacceptable. I just don't get the view point I guess.[/QUOTE] Did you just equate owning another person with being allowed to enjoy your own body? Are you for real...?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44627006]why are those things equal in your mind? Why does that nudity go together with those ideas for you as equally despicable things that should be treated as relics of a forgotten age?[/QUOTE] Please look at the logical progression of the argument. Every point doesn't apply to EVERY POSSIBLE line of argumentation. He clearly stated that public sexuality wasn't taboo in the past as an argument for it not being taboo today. I then pointed to other things that were also not taboo in the past, but obviously should be taboo today. The point being that his line of argumentation was incorrect and that whether something was taboo in the past is irrelevant to what should be taboo today.
You're equating owning another person and their lives for yourself, versus just simply not being ashamed of your body and sexuality which harms no one at all...? Do you know how little sense this makes?
[QUOTE=sgman91;44627002]Way to take the point in a completely different direction all of a sudden. You said that if something happened in antiquity, then that gave it credence for happening today. I pointed to other things that also happened in antiquity that are obviously not acceptable today. The point being that whether something happened in ancient societies is irrelevant to the question of whether it should happen today.[/QUOTE] I brought it up to show that ancient societies could work perfectly well without harming anyone even though sexual depictions were prevalent. Slavery and child sacrifice harmed people, and poisoned the societies that had them. Can you give a real reason why sexual depictions are harmful?
[QUOTE=sgman91;44627044]Please look at the logical progression of the argument. Every point doesn't apply to EVERY POSSIBLE line of argumentation. He clearly stated that public sexuality wasn't taboo in the past as an argument for it not being taboo today. I then pointed to other things that were also not taboo in the past, but obviously should be taboo today. The point being that his line of argumentation was incorrect and that whether something was taboo in the past is irrelevant to what should be taboo today.[/QUOTE] Okay. Now, lets have you do the same. In the 1920's society deemed the line above a womans calf to be sexual. This was a fact of the time. What I'm saying is that you can look at the past to see what was okay and what wasn't okay in their own cultures, but with something as harmless as loving your own body is it really the same as other acts against other people?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44627038]Did you just equate owning another person with being allowed to enjoy your own body? Are you for real...?[/QUOTE] You made an argument that applies to ridiculous things. If you consider your original line of reasoning to be correct, then it would also apply to things like slavery. I think they are both terrible arguments because what past societies have done isn't proof for acceptable behavior.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44627025]Literally the same argument could be made for slavery: That's societies problem isn't it? Or would you argue we are by nature ashamed of slavery as some others have? Frankly, we know we aren't because there's eras of culture where slavery was fine. Then we have an entirely different era society where slavery was forbidden and something to be ashamed of that basically made slavery that we today call unacceptable. I just don't get the view point I guess.[/QUOTE] Slavery has a negative impact on individuals. It strips them of their freedoms and self basically. It is in no way comparable to sexuality, even if it is a societal problem. Making such a comparison is asinine and seriously makes me wonder if you are capable of understanding why it's a dumb comparison. Because this sure as shit doesn't look like satire or someone playing devils advocate.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44627062]Okay. Now, lets have you do the same. In the 1920's society deemed the line above a womans calf to be sexual. This was a fact of the time. Now, also okay at the time was segregation. I mean clearly we should go back to that era of time, yes?[/QUOTE] Do you even read?!?!... I'm sorry, but this is frustrating. I've already said that past societies aren't good reasons to do something today. So why don't you apply your question to that same statement that I've made. The answer is clear.
Forget about my dumb post. I wasn't clear and I wasn't using "it was OK in the past!" to justify sexual depictions. sgman, can you give a reason why public sexuality and sexual depictions are harmful, or how they have a negative impact on anything?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.