What if I had the Venus De Milo or David on my shirt? Is that obscene too?
Comparing these famous sculptures of nudity to outright masturbation while calling jesus a cunt is beyond ridiculous.
Can you give reasons, using only very specific terms?
If you want to go down this road, here's what's going to happen:
1) The thread is going to go down to a huge shitposting thread.
2) It will turn into a religion thread.
3) It will get locked, but not before infractions are handed out to the most outlandish violators of decency.
No, I'm not going to define vulgarity. I will say though, that while it is difficult to determine what should always be considered right or wrong, there are certain things that make themselves OBVIOUSLY WRONG. Just like the rules of this forum, while there are plenty of shades of grey, certain posts are made where everyone knows it's only a question of which admin sees it first.
Anyway, Mark Twain had some interesting views on swearing and blasphemy:
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
- Notebook, 1898
He began with that word "H". That's a long word and a profane word. I don't remember what the word was now, but I recognized the power of it. I had never used that language myself, but at that moment I was converted. It has been a great refuge for me in time of trouble. If a man doesn't know that language he can't express himself on strenuous occasions. When you have that word at your command let trouble come.
- Speech, 2/19/1908
...he was empty. You could have drawn a seine through his system and not caught curses enough to disturb your mother.
- Life on the Mississippi
My swearing doesn't mean any more to me than your sermons do to you.
- comment made to Rev. Joe Twichell, quoted in Mark Twain and Hawaii, by Walter Francis Frear
Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
This goes into another gray area, but what counts as graphic depiction? I don't find the shirt to be much of anything besides "oh noes, tits!" If I was a kid and saw this shirt, I would probably just be confused. It's not a very graphic piece of art - I mean, Marduk's "fuck me jesus" art is a decent bit older and more graphic, I'd say.
Are you asking from the point of view of graphic depiction in public, or stuff you just want to view at home? Because I don't think many people are going to give two hoots about what's at home, but few are going to say that's something that should be worn (disregarding the text) in public.
I meant public, sorry about that. But I disagree with you on the last part, at least in principle. Why should something like this not be allowed on shirts in public? Yeah, the whole point is a petty shot at shock value, but is there anything really offensive or damaging on the shirt beyond the religious aspect? What damage does it do for a child to discover what breasts look like?
I said "beyond the religious aspect" because that is what this seems like - a matter of religious offense, not graphic depiction. And if this is correct, does it warrant arrest?
No, I'm not going to define vulgarity. I will say though, that while it is difficult to determine what should always be considered right or wrong, there are certain things that make themselves OBVIOUSLY WRONG. Just like the rules of this forum, while there are plenty of shades of grey, certain posts are made where everyone knows it's only a question of which admin sees it first.
I would say that a bit of religious offense coupled with mild nudity doesn't fall into the same category as rape or murder. Obviously wrong does not apply to everyone, especially with such a harmless example.
METAzraeL on
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
The real question is why is the depiction of masturbation inherently harmful to children.
I see what you did there.
At least I hope a do. I mean, gaggles of psychologists have confirmed that exposing a child to sexual acts leads to all sorts of badness.
An adult forcing a child to watch sexual acts is a form of child sexual abuse, yes.
Walking past a static depiction of a sexual act on a t-shirt is not remotely the same thing.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Would reading Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in public be a crime? That man was sick.
How many times does it have to be said that text and vocal speech is generally considered differently than graphic (re: visual) representations. They are all forms of expression and all protected, but don't pretend that an image is the same as a guy talking is the same as a line of text.
What damage does it do for a child to discover what breasts look like?
I'd say none, as anybody young enough to be damaged by nudity is still sucking on them.
Would reading Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in public be a crime? That man was sick.
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
No, I don't want to hear about the R-rated movie you saw when you were 'x' years old and how you turned out fine. #1 there are exceptions to every rule, and #2 how the fuck do I know you turned out/will turn out fine.
I'd argue that psychological damage that comes from witnessing this sort of thing as a child occurs retroactively, as socially learned concepts like purity are learned and applied-- shattering or at least damaging their self-esteem, and any notions on sexuality they had constructed.
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
No, I don't want to hear about the R-rated movie you saw when you were 'x' years old and how you turned out fine. #1 there are exceptions to every rule, and #2 how the fuck do I know you turned out/will turn out fine.
Yeah, and all those next-to-nude Amazonian tribes... I guess they didn't civilize because their entire adult populations didn't "turn out right" ?
Anyway, I think this "evidence" has been cited enough times to be asked for.
I'll get on that tomorrow. I gotta figure out some search strings that I don't feel weird typing into google on the subject. But lets remember...the shirt isn't offensive b/c of the nudity in and of itself. I have NO CULTURAL BACKGROUND of any import to get into intelligent debate on Amazonian tribes, but I'm guessing they don't walk around masturbating in public.
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
No, I don't want to hear about the R-rated movie you saw when you were 'x' years old and how you turned out fine. #1 there are exceptions to every rule, and #2 how the fuck do I know you turned out/will turn out fine.
Yeah, and all those next-to-nude Amazonian tribes... I guess they didn't civilize because their entire adult populations didn't "turn out right" ?
Anyway, I think this "evidence" has been cited enough times to be asked for.
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
I'm glad that when I focus in on one absurd point, and miss the even more absurd structure that point was built on to begin with, someone smarter than me is around to pick it up. Cause this was funny.
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
No, I don't want to hear about the R-rated movie you saw when you were 'x' years old and how you turned out fine. #1 there are exceptions to every rule, and #2 how the fuck do I know you turned out/will turn out fine.
Yeah, and all those next-to-nude Amazonian tribes... I guess they didn't civilize because their entire adult populations didn't "turn out right" ?
Anyway, I think this "evidence" has been cited enough times to be asked for.
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
Nope, but that raises a good point. If we agree that vulgarity should be defined and laws be made against its most egregious forms, and that we work within the context of culture (because different cultures have wildly different standards)... why protect one culture, and not another? And, in any case, why not leave such questions unapproached by law? If more children ended up seeing more bewbies, maybe more lax standards would become part of the culture, making it a non-issue.
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
I'm glad that when I focus in on one absurd point, and miss the even more absurd structure that point was built on to begin with, someone smarter than me is around to pick it up. Cause this was funny.
Are there many Aborigines left living the traditional lifestyle?
Cause o ho my friend, they were Australians before anyone, and hell if they aren't quite nude much of the time.
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
No, I don't want to hear about the R-rated movie you saw when you were 'x' years old and how you turned out fine. #1 there are exceptions to every rule, and #2 how the fuck do I know you turned out/will turn out fine.
Yeah, and all those next-to-nude Amazonian tribes... I guess they didn't civilize because their entire adult populations didn't "turn out right" ?
Anyway, I think this "evidence" has been cited enough times to be asked for.
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
Would the nude beaches in Europe be a better comparison?
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
I'm glad that when I focus in on one absurd point, and miss the even more absurd structure that point was built on to begin with, someone smarter than me is around to pick it up. Cause this was funny.
Not a problem.
You're still wrong, though. Sexual depictions should be considered protected speech same as obscene language. The craft involved in sculptine something, such as The Rape of the Sabine Women, and the history involved in a piece do not absolve the hypocrisy public acceptance of its depiction while abhorring others. If anything it fetishizes sex even further and keeps us that much more fucked up in the head as a culture. Assuming that Oz is relatively fucked up in the head.
moniker on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
I'm glad that when I focus in on one absurd point, and miss the even more absurd structure that point was built on to begin with, someone smarter than me is around to pick it up. Cause this was funny.
Are there many Aboriginies left living the traditional lifestyle?
Cause o ho my friend, they were Australians before anyone, and hell if they aren't quite nude much of the time.
There are some, but a lot of Aboriginal people living traditionally from the land wear clothing anyway.
Oh, and technically, Australia doesn't actually have the same freedoms of speech america has. Hence why government sanctioned censorship is A-OK here (and why no R rating for games mean they are effectively banned here - but that's getting off topic).
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
No, I don't want to hear about the R-rated movie you saw when you were 'x' years old and how you turned out fine. #1 there are exceptions to every rule, and #2 how the fuck do I know you turned out/will turn out fine.
Yeah, and all those next-to-nude Amazonian tribes... I guess they didn't civilize because their entire adult populations didn't "turn out right" ?
Anyway, I think this "evidence" has been cited enough times to be asked for.
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
Nope, but that raises a good point. If we agree that vulgarity should be defined and laws be made against its most egregious forms, and that we work within the context of culture (because different cultures have wildly different standards)... why protect one culture, and not another? And, in any case, why not leave such questions unapproached by law? If more children ended up seeing more bewbies, maybe more lax standards would become part of the culture, making it a non-issue.
Except your post was not about the legality or wrongheadedness of a law based around social mores, it was about the development of children. Which is very much influenced by the cultural norms in their surrounding area, so bringing up Amazonian tribes makes absolutely no sense.
What if I had the Venus De Milo or David on my shirt? Is that obscene too?
No, because the legal definition of obscenity excludes works with artistic merit.
As I mentioned before, that is an extraordinarily fucking vague notion, in my mind, and bringing it up solves nothing... we just add another insanely arbitrary scale.
I would think a simple rule of thumb to use is, if you couldn't get away with doing it in public, you probably shouldn't wear it in public.
If a nun was naked at a street corner jilling herself while screaming "JESUS IS A CUNT", I'm thinking someone would be done about it real fast. Probably not a good idea to walk down the middle of main street with it on a t-shirt.
As a small aside, I have a hoodie called Mr. Happy. It's in the style of those old pre-school books of characters like Mr. Bump and such. The joke being it's a guy with a storm cloud over his head, and he's giving the finger. I've worn it in public, and I'm actually surprised that I've never gotten a negative comment. In fact, people mention to me all the time how hilarious they think it is.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
No, I don't want to hear about the R-rated movie you saw when you were 'x' years old and how you turned out fine. #1 there are exceptions to every rule, and #2 how the fuck do I know you turned out/will turn out fine.
Yeah, and all those next-to-nude Amazonian tribes... I guess they didn't civilize because their entire adult populations didn't "turn out right" ?
Anyway, I think this "evidence" has been cited enough times to be asked for.
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
Nope, but that raises a good point. If we agree that vulgarity should be defined and laws be made against its most egregious forms, and that we work within the context of culture (because different cultures have wildly different standards)... why protect one culture, and not another? And, in any case, why not leave such questions unapproached by law? If more children ended up seeing more bewbies, maybe more lax standards would become part of the culture, making it a non-issue.
Except your post was not about the legality or wrongheadedness of a law based around social mores, it was about the development of children. Which is very much influenced by the cultural norms in their surrounding area, so bringing up Amazonian tribes makes absolutely no sense.
He made the claim that children should not be exposed to nudity or they turn out screwy. That's specifically what I was challenging. It's no different from the "I saw an R-rated movie at 8" rebuttal, it's just impersonal and uses an entire society.
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
Go tell all the Asians that bathe as a family that.
Wait, no, the burden of proof is on you that nudity = harmful.
Now I can already see people pointing out that this is pornographic video and not a t-shirt. Fine. This next one is going to get at the topic from a different angle, nudity being part of sexualization:
In respect to the idea of debate, I am having difficulties finding specific studies on still images. All the search results are coming up for studies on child pornography, children viewing pornography, or the effects of sexualized media on teens having sex. So I will drop that if no one with an actual psych background can support what I'm sure I've seen somewhere along the line in the past few years. I really have difficulty understanding, dropping the debate on whether or not the arrest is valid, how any of you can argue that naked images of masturbation don't have a negative effect on kids. And when I say kids, no, I'm not talking about teenagers.
wolfman - such a rule of thumb would be wise if you were concerned with offending people or drawing attention, but is it something to be arrested over?
scrublet - yes, the sexual objectification of women in the media is harmful. No one thinks it's good for a teenage girl to be starving herself so she can look like whatever popular model is on the news. However, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sadly, I don't think this shirt is corrupting nuns or causing widespread bulimia.
As far as masturbation having a negative effect...what exactly are you talking about? The introduction of the idea of masturbation into their lives? I'm sure the parent having to explain it would experience some discomfort, but I don't see how this knowledge is such a horrible thing.
METAzraeL on
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
Go tell all the Asians that bathe as a family that.
Wait, no, the burden of proof is on you that nudity = harmful.
Either I wasn't clear or my post is being misinterpreted. You'll recall I said the nudity present in David or whatever is not obscene. Neither is this other nudity. So let me rephrase: "children should indeed NOT be exposed to nuns masturbating naked."
I understand that children see nudity in all these situations being thrown at me. But no one seems to be actually arguing with my point.
I would think a simple rule of thumb to use is, if you couldn't get away with doing it in public, you probably shouldn't wear it in public.
If a nun was naked at a street corner jilling herself while screaming "JESUS IS A CUNT", I'm thinking someone would be done about it real fast. Probably not a good idea to walk down the middle of main street with it on a t-shirt.
You realize that you also ban all visual depictions of violence, theft, etc. with this standard right?
Wrong. There is plenty of psychological evidence that shows that children should indeed NOT be exposed to nudity. You can debate all you want about this t-shirt, but I think the idea that children SHOULD NOT (rather than SHOULD) be exposed to nudity has been settled outside of this thread.
Go tell all the Asians that bathe as a family that.
Wait, no, the burden of proof is on you that nudity = harmful.
Either I wasn't clear or my post is being misinterpreted. You'll recall I said the nudity present in David or whatever is not obscene. Neither is this other nudity. So let me rephrase: "children should indeed NOT be exposed to nuns masturbating naked."
I understand that children see nudity in all these situations being thrown at me. But no one seems to be actually arguing with my point.
That's mostly because you aren't really making a point, just an unsubstantiated claim. Well...I disagree.
Going back to the OP, I will say it is difficult to judge the arrest. In some ways, I see this going back to the whole smoking ban in public places thing. Group A has a right to smoke in public, express their views however obscene, etc. But then Group B has a right to their rights not being infringed, meaning health not being affected by secondhand smoke, not having things they consider obscene being thrown in their children's faces in public, etc. It's hard, which is why the court system in most countries exists. I think it's more difficult to justify violent videogames or obscenities in music that you choose to engage in versus a t-shirt everyone will see outside like it or not.
Going back to the OP, I will say it is difficult to judge the arrest. In some ways, I see this going back to the whole smoking ban in public places thing. Group A has a right to smoke in public, express their views however obscene, etc. But then Group B has a right to their rights not being infringed, meaning health not being affected by secondhand smoke, not having things they consider obscene being thrown in their children's faces in public, etc. It's hard, which is why the court system in most countries exists. I think it's more difficult to justify violent videogames or obscenities in music that you choose to engage in versus a t-shirt everyone will see outside like it or not.
I would think a simple rule of thumb to use is, if you couldn't get away with doing it in public, you probably shouldn't wear it in public.
If a nun was naked at a street corner jilling herself while screaming "JESUS IS A CUNT", I'm thinking someone would be done about it real fast. Probably not a good idea to walk down the middle of main street with it on a t-shirt.
You realize that you also ban all visual depictions of violence, theft, etc. with this standard right?
What about a shirt depicting you wearing that shirt?
Posts
How about the Rape of the Sabine Women, then?
If you want to go down this road, here's what's going to happen:
1) The thread is going to go down to a huge shitposting thread.
2) It will turn into a religion thread.
3) It will get locked, but not before infractions are handed out to the most outlandish violators of decency.
No, I'm not going to define vulgarity. I will say though, that while it is difficult to determine what should always be considered right or wrong, there are certain things that make themselves OBVIOUSLY WRONG. Just like the rules of this forum, while there are plenty of shades of grey, certain posts are made where everyone knows it's only a question of which admin sees it first.
PSN: TheScrublet
Anyway, Mark Twain had some interesting views on swearing and blasphemy:
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
- Notebook, 1898
He began with that word "H". That's a long word and a profane word. I don't remember what the word was now, but I recognized the power of it. I had never used that language myself, but at that moment I was converted. It has been a great refuge for me in time of trouble. If a man doesn't know that language he can't express himself on strenuous occasions. When you have that word at your command let trouble come.
- Speech, 2/19/1908
...he was empty. You could have drawn a seine through his system and not caught curses enough to disturb your mother.
- Life on the Mississippi
My swearing doesn't mean any more to me than your sermons do to you.
- comment made to Rev. Joe Twichell, quoted in Mark Twain and Hawaii, by Walter Francis Frear
Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
I meant public, sorry about that. But I disagree with you on the last part, at least in principle. Why should something like this not be allowed on shirts in public? Yeah, the whole point is a petty shot at shock value, but is there anything really offensive or damaging on the shirt beyond the religious aspect? What damage does it do for a child to discover what breasts look like?
I said "beyond the religious aspect" because that is what this seems like - a matter of religious offense, not graphic depiction. And if this is correct, does it warrant arrest?
I would say that a bit of religious offense coupled with mild nudity doesn't fall into the same category as rape or murder. Obviously wrong does not apply to everyone, especially with such a harmless example.
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
Again, probably not. Language obscurities and even dirty words cannot be compared to a t-shirt depicting nudity and masturbation.
PSN: TheScrublet
Hell, even legally. "Artistic merit" is one of the most nebulous concepts out there.
An adult forcing a child to watch sexual acts is a form of child sexual abuse, yes.
Walking past a static depiction of a sexual act on a t-shirt is not remotely the same thing.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
How many times does it have to be said that text and vocal speech is generally considered differently than graphic (re: visual) representations. They are all forms of expression and all protected, but don't pretend that an image is the same as a guy talking is the same as a line of text.
PSN: TheScrublet
Yeah, and all those next-to-nude Amazonian tribes... I guess they didn't civilize because their entire adult populations didn't "turn out right" ?
Anyway, I think this "evidence" has been cited enough times to be asked for.
PSN: TheScrublet
...are you actually suggesting that cultural norms for Australia are directly comparable to tribal villages in the Amazon with a straight face?
Yeah I'd like to see citations on that, chief.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm glad that when I focus in on one absurd point, and miss the even more absurd structure that point was built on to begin with, someone smarter than me is around to pick it up. Cause this was funny.
PSN: TheScrublet
Nope, but that raises a good point. If we agree that vulgarity should be defined and laws be made against its most egregious forms, and that we work within the context of culture (because different cultures have wildly different standards)... why protect one culture, and not another? And, in any case, why not leave such questions unapproached by law? If more children ended up seeing more bewbies, maybe more lax standards would become part of the culture, making it a non-issue.
Are there many Aborigines left living the traditional lifestyle?
Cause o ho my friend, they were Australians before anyone, and hell if they aren't quite nude much of the time.
Not a problem.
You're still wrong, though. Sexual depictions should be considered protected speech same as obscene language. The craft involved in sculptine something, such as The Rape of the Sabine Women, and the history involved in a piece do not absolve the hypocrisy public acceptance of its depiction while abhorring others. If anything it fetishizes sex even further and keeps us that much more fucked up in the head as a culture. Assuming that Oz is relatively fucked up in the head.
No, because the legal definition of obscenity excludes works with artistic merit.
There are some, but a lot of Aboriginal people living traditionally from the land wear clothing anyway.
Oh, and technically, Australia doesn't actually have the same freedoms of speech america has. Hence why government sanctioned censorship is A-OK here (and why no R rating for games mean they are effectively banned here - but that's getting off topic).
Except your post was not about the legality or wrongheadedness of a law based around social mores, it was about the development of children. Which is very much influenced by the cultural norms in their surrounding area, so bringing up Amazonian tribes makes absolutely no sense.
As I mentioned before, that is an extraordinarily fucking vague notion, in my mind, and bringing it up solves nothing... we just add another insanely arbitrary scale.
Edit: Also, maybe some urns.
Except that 'artistic merit' is so broad a label as to be meaningless.
If a nun was naked at a street corner jilling herself while screaming "JESUS IS A CUNT", I'm thinking someone would be done about it real fast. Probably not a good idea to walk down the middle of main street with it on a t-shirt.
As a small aside, I have a hoodie called Mr. Happy. It's in the style of those old pre-school books of characters like Mr. Bump and such. The joke being it's a guy with a storm cloud over his head, and he's giving the finger. I've worn it in public, and I'm actually surprised that I've never gotten a negative comment. In fact, people mention to me all the time how hilarious they think it is.
You could put it on a pedastal and/or encase it in a lucite box. Just make sure it gets chiefly North light. That's the good light.
He made the claim that children should not be exposed to nudity or they turn out screwy. That's specifically what I was challenging. It's no different from the "I saw an R-rated movie at 8" rebuttal, it's just impersonal and uses an entire society.
Go tell all the Asians that bathe as a family that.
Wait, no, the burden of proof is on you that nudity = harmful.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I actually thought this one spoke for itself. But I baited and it caught. Spoilered, I did the best I could:
Now I can already see people pointing out that this is pornographic video and not a t-shirt. Fine. This next one is going to get at the topic from a different angle, nudity being part of sexualization:
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexualization.html
PSN: TheScrublet
scrublet - yes, the sexual objectification of women in the media is harmful. No one thinks it's good for a teenage girl to be starving herself so she can look like whatever popular model is on the news. However, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sadly, I don't think this shirt is corrupting nuns or causing widespread bulimia.
As far as masturbation having a negative effect...what exactly are you talking about? The introduction of the idea of masturbation into their lives? I'm sure the parent having to explain it would experience some discomfort, but I don't see how this knowledge is such a horrible thing.
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
Either I wasn't clear or my post is being misinterpreted. You'll recall I said the nudity present in David or whatever is not obscene. Neither is this other nudity. So let me rephrase: "children should indeed NOT be exposed to nuns masturbating naked."
I understand that children see nudity in all these situations being thrown at me. But no one seems to be actually arguing with my point.
PSN: TheScrublet
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's mostly because you aren't really making a point, just an unsubstantiated claim. Well...I disagree.
PSN: TheScrublet
Noone has the right to not be offended.
What about a shirt depicting you wearing that shirt?