On 16 May 2011 16:41, Chris McKenna <cmckenna(a)sucs.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna
<cmckenna(a)sucs.org> wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual.
Therefore it is not
pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary
sexual characteristics is not sexual?
Not necessarily. Nudity does not equal sex, the surrounding context is not
sexual, the pose is not inherrently sexual, and the background to the
image is non-sexual, so in this case I'd say there is nothing sexual abou
the image.
All I ever learned about human anatomy I learned from Rob Liefeld?
I don't think that ad hominem attacks are a
particuarly good way to win an
argument.
Wait you want to censor people calling 14 year olds were juvenile?
Thank you for making another offensive comment.
Not my fault if your culture tends to take offence easily.
In answer though, nudity does not equal sex, and sex
does not equal
pornography.
Nudes posed on a way that accent their breasts on the other hand.
You mean "I think it is sexual, therefore what
the artist says is
irrelevant because other artists in the field don't say what I think they
should say."?
No I think it's sexual because it is. I don't take the artist
statement at face value because well lets face it anything that sells
itself as anything short of a strip-joint will argue that it isn't
sexual. Heck legally the windmill theater's tableau vivant were ah
"classical nudes" and not sexual.
What has this got to do with naturism?
As far as I'm aware they are the group with the most widespread
acceptance of social nudity.
How is not showing certain images on the main page
because some people are
offended by them different to censoring the main page for the protection
of people who are offended by certain images?
Offense I can live with. Needlessly sexualising the commons
environment no so much.
Okay. I don't understand how this relates to
this image though.
It's possible that you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we
would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual
basis.
What has my (or anyone else's) sexuality got to do with this discussion?
Well if you don't understand how the image is sexual I assumed that
you must be asexual which would provide an explantion for your claims.
Other than being entirely independent of any culture
you mean.
Oh it's not though. To start with you care about laws of man rather
than some god or other.. So that's one cultural judgment. Secondly you
separate speech from actions which again is another cultural judgment.
There is also the position that you need to judge that certain things
are offensive which is yet another cultural judgment.
--
geni