Nudity = Sexual?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

There were two sets of photos posted.  I saw the originals.  When another forumite confronted Immy about her post, Immy began to break her **** by posting to lolicon links.  The way I understand the personalities is that there has always been bad blood between the two.  However, my OP does not have anything to do with the lolicon links - I want to understand why so many 'jumped' on her for her, imo, rather benign post.

Is a nude child sunbathing considered 'sexual'?  Imo, it is not.   

 

---

I did not see the original images and I did gather that there has been an ongoing feud between the OP in that thread and other posters.  At what point an image of a naked child (or specifically, the images that had been posted in that thread)  could be considered 'sexualized,' individual opinion may vary greatly.  I do think this is a valid subject of discussion, especially with how borked many of our laws have become. 

It is hard to tell in that thread whether the OP was simply responding to the censorship of her original images or was retaliating against the censors.  I lean toward responding but I don't know. Regardless of what was going on over there, I still think the points I raised above our valid to this whole discussion.

While i agree with you that 'nude sunbathing' is not in and of itself sexual, and while I am not an expert on the subject, it appears to me that both clothed and nude images in Manga generally are done with sexual intent in mind.  And therein lays the problem.

I believe there is a valid comparison I could make.  When he was a child actor, in order to get him to cry in his films, the producers / directors would tell Jackie Cooper that they were going  to harm his dog.  Now knowing this, could you enjoy those movies the same way you might have if you thought he was just able to cry at will?  This is one of the reasons why the intent behind the pictures IS a valid part of this discussion.

[Storm Clarence]

Immy explained her motivation above.  Can we still question her?  Who are we to question her motivation anyway?  There is one fact that remains and that is regardless of the 'moral' position anyone takes there will be a counter argument. Nobody is going to 'fix' anybody else; especially in a forum environment.   

[Perrie Juran]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

Immy explained her motivation above.  Can we still question her?  Who are we to question her motivation anyway? 

---

It is not my purpose to call her back into question here.  I simply stated my perspective concerning her responses.  As was covered in that thread, there were several ways the  people who objected  could have responded.  They could have asked her 'nicely' to remove the images or as what happenned there, they jumped her sh*t.  I dislike 'sh*t jumping' as much as the next person.

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

 Nobody is going to 'fix' anybody else; especially in a forum environment.   

---

These forums are sure testament to that. 

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

There is one fact that remains and that is regardless of the 'moral' position anyone takes there will be a counter argument.

---

Then upon what standard do we choose or base our positions?  I believe that I stated mine clearly in my responses.

I do also find it interesting that you neglected (whether intentionally or not) my direct question to you.  But we always as individuals do have the right (or at least in this country are supposed to have the right) to choose what questions we do or don't want to answer.

 

And I should add that failure to answer should NEVER be considered as an admission of guilt.

 

---

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

Immy explained her motivation above.  Can we still question her?  Who are we to question her motivation anyway? 

---

It is not my purpose to call her back into question here.  I simply stated my perspective concerning her responses.  As was covered in that thread, there were several ways the  people who objected  could have responded.  They could have asked her 'nicely' to remove the images or as what happenned there, they jumped her sh*t.  I dislike 'sh*t jumping' as much as the next person.

 

---

I absolutely agree with you Perrie, and I was not questioning you.  Mob rules in favor of the prevailing winds.    

[Ishtara Rothschild]

The only imaginable rationale behind the notion that naked children are somehow wrong and bad goes something like this: If the naked female body is sinful because it gives normal men indecent thoughts, the naked body of a child is even more sinful because it might excite pedophiles, which is unarguably a worse sin than the sexual excitement caused by adult women.

This means that both women and children are evil temptresses and tempters who shouldn't be allowed to show any skin at all. Parents should be forced to wrap their kids in burkhas or hazmat suits. And medical literature as well as anthropology publications that feature images of naked children need to be burned ASAP. We can't have that kind of filth in a decent society with proper Christian / Muslim morals.

 

ETA: As for drawings, they're just as bad as the real thing. We need to start cracking down on thought crimes. Like the bible says, looking at a woman equals adultery. By extension, this means that an artist who draws naked children ought to be tried for child abuse, and an artist who paints a murder scene should be strapped in the electric chair. (The first example has already been made into law, now we only need to enforce the latter).

[Perrie Juran]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

The only imaginable rationale behind the notion that naked children are somehow wrong and bad goes something like this: If the naked female body is sinful because it gives normal men indecent thoughts, the naked body of a child is even more sinful because it might excite pedophiles, which is unarguably a worse sin than the sexual excitement caused by adult women.

This means that both women and children are evil temptresses and tempters who shouldn't be allowed to show any skin at all. Parents should be forced to wrap their kids in burkhas or hazmat suits. And medical literature as well as anthropology publications that feature images of naked children need to be burned ASAP. We can't have that kind of filth in a decent society with proper Christian / Muslim morals.

 

ETA: As for drawings, they're just as bad as the real thing. We need to start cracking down on thought crimes. Like the bible says, looking at a woman equals adultery. By extension, this means that an artist who draws naked children ought to be tried for child abuse, and an artist who paints a murder scene should be strapped in the electric chair. (The first example has already been made into law, now we only need to enforce the latter).

---

I am really surprised at you here Ishy.  You usually post with greater clarity of thought and logic.

Why are you opening yourself up to attack like this.  Or is it on purpose?  For instance, why exclude the naked male body in your post?

I know that I myself think the human body, child or adult is beautiful.  I don't find child nudity in and of itself offensive.  Nor does it stimulate me,  And while I think many go overboard with the "you've got to keep the body under wraps," do you consider the sexualization of children OK?  I've stated my reasons why I think it is a slippery slope.  And they have nothing to do with any Judeo/Christian/Muslim ethic.

Children are not capable of making choices when it comes to sex.  So unless you think of children as nothing more or less then chattel, to force them into sexual activities is wrong.  Unless you know another alternative.  I do not believe they are chattel, hence to me it is wrong.  I guess  there may be people who think otherwise.  So in this thread I have stated another possible rationale.

I'd be most curious to know how you feel, your response to the situation I posted to Storm about Jacky Cooper?  Would it change the way you felt about the movie?

 

If i don't reply again it is mainly because i have other things to do right now.  I had pretty much decided I had given this topic all the attention that I wanted to at this time when I read your post but did feel that I needed to respond.  Thank you for understanding.

 



[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

The only imaginable rationale behind the notion that naked children are somehow wrong and bad goes something like this: If the naked female body is sinful because it gives normal men indecent thoughts, the naked body of a child is even more sinful because it might excite pedophiles [...] Parents should be forced to wrap their kids in burkhas or hazmat suits. And medical literature [...] needs to be burned ASAP.

---

I am really surprised at you here Ishy. You usually post with greater clarity of thought and logic.

Why are you opening yourself up to attack like this. Or is it on purpose? For instance, why exclude the naked male body in your post?

---

I've cut the quote of my post down to the most ridiculous parts. You didn't seriously think that this would be my actual opinion, did you? Like I said, this is the only rationale imaginable behind the notion that nudity is sinful and inherently sexual. Of course I'm not agreeing with this rationale myself, no matter how widespread it still is in the Judeo-Christian and Muslim world.

PS: Male nudity was an entirely different problem for the patriarchs that came up with the "women = evil temptresses" idea. It had more to do with male rivalry and aggression than with sexual arousal.

 

---

And while I think many go overboard with the "you've got to keep the body under wraps," do you consider the sexualization of children OK?

---

Sexual activities that involve children are of course not ok. I think you're confusing two entirely different things here. This reminds me of arguments in the lines of "if you don't see any problem with the legalization of cannabis, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if McD served cocaine with their Happy Meals".

Sexualization is a different matter. It is in the eye of the observer, and therefore the psychological problem of the observer. People who perceive children as sexualized should be worried about their own inappropriate sexual thoughts rather than the object of these thoughts. That's exactly the twisted "you make me feel weird and that's your fault, you sinful temptress / tempter" rationale that I sarcastically criticized in my post.

If somebody looks at the naked body of an innocent child and thinks "omg sex", it is certainly not the fault of the child, nor is it the fault of the photographer or artist. I find it quite troublesome that so many people automatically make this highly inappropriate connection. It reminds me of the motto of the Order of the Garter: "Honi soit qui mal y pense" (shame upon him who thinks evil upon it).

 

---

 

I've stated my reasons why I think it is a slippery slope.  And they have nothing to do with any Judeo/Christian/Muslim ethic.

---

Slippery slope arguments constitute logical fallacies. And I think the twisted and often ridiculous Western attitude towards nudity (remember the outrage about Janet Jackson's nipple slip?) has a whole lot to do with Judeo-Christian-Muslim sexual "ethics", because in many other cultures nudity is not tagged with the same taboo. Especially not infant nudity, which is seen as something harmless and innocent by less confused and squeamish cultures.

 

---

I'd be most curious to know how you feel, your response to the situation I posted to Storm about Jacky Cooper?  Would it change the way you felt about the movie?



---

 

Let's see... you wrote:

"While i agree with you that 'nude sunbathing' is not in and of itself sexual, and while I am not an expert on the subject, it appears to me that both clothed and nude images in Manga generally are done with sexual intent in mind. And therein lays the problem.

I believe there is a valid comparison I could make. When he was a child actor, in order to get him to cry in his films, the producers / directors would tell Jackie Cooper that they were going to harm his dog. Now knowing this, could you enjoy those movies the same way you might have if you thought he was just able to cry at will? This is one of the reasons why the intent behind the pictures IS a valid part of this discussion."

 

I think you've confused several entirely unrelated issues. First of all, you're mistakenly conflating manga with hentai. Manga is an umbrella term for a whole number of mediums. There are mangas for all age and gender groups, and only very few of them feature sexual content.

Immy wrote that the image in question featured characters from Card Captor Sakura, which is a shōjo manga series. The target group of shōjo manga are young female readers aged 10+. It's the Japanese equivalent of "My Little Pony" or "Lilo and Stitch". A perfect example that sexualization is in the eye of the beholder, and often caused by the distorting cultural lens of the Western World that has come to falsely equate manga artwork with sex.

You also conflate child nudity with sexual child abuse, which is another fallacy, and you falsely equate drawings with live action movies. Finally, you give an example of something that, while undoubtedly cruel and abusive, has also nothing to do with nudity whatsoever, not to mention sexuality. I'm sorry to say that I couldn't quite follow your logic and your post didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

Having looked at the gV thread in question, I really don't see what all the fuzz is about. How can people look at a drawing of girls playing at a beach and see something sexual? I can only imagine that older generations in Western countries have come to equate manga and anime with sex and perversion, which transforms all manga artwork that depicts children into lolicon in their minds.

People fail to understand that most otakus are addicted to cuteness or "moe"-ness in a completely innocent and non-sexual way. It's like looking at photos of kittens. They're ridiculously cute. They give you warm fuzzy feelings. That doesn't make the observer a zoophile. Of course there is a certain ecchi / hentai niche that might be considered illegal in the Western World, but I didn't see any of that on the desktop background or on the wall posters that some people were up in arms about.

Anybody who fails to understand the fascination of otakus with cuteness might want to read up on moe (a maternal, paternal or fraternal ("big brother") attraction to, or platonic crush on, a cute manga or anime character), chibi depictions or nendoroid figures of adult manga characters, or the general Japanese obsession with all things kawaii. Alternatively, you can adopt a kitten in order to experience this phenomenon.

[Void Singer]

stupidty: the act of tripping over the truth, or running headlong into it, then dusting your self off and continuing on as if nothing happened.... especially repeatedly.

[Perrie Juran]

Thank you for your response.

I know that I walk a fine line here because while on the one hand I very much oppose censorship, I also very much oppose child abuse and all other forms of abuse.

I did try to define my terms as I was using them knowing and stating that I am not an expert on the subject.  I do find many of the images in the overall genre, I will use the term "cute" here in  a generic way, as they portray the innocence and beauty of childhood.  No different to me than a Norman Rockwell painting or Keane's  waifs.

I also know that I am responsible for what I think.  My opinion is that if someone is sexually stimulated by these images that they need a check up from the neck up.  But they are free to think what they want to think.  Just don't try to carry out your fantasy.  (And no, I am not saying these images cause the problem. I know better than that).

The point of my Jacky Cooper illustration was simply this, if you knew the background of an image, would it change your opinion of it.  If you knew the intent  of the artist was to stimulate or promulgate or encourage abuse, would it effect the way you perceived that image?  I am not against the factual representation of life as it happens, the good, the bad, and the ugly.  That can be one intent of an artist. 

But there can be other intents also.  If the intent is ill (accepting the fact that we both agree abuse is wrong), do we speak up against it or do we just walk away pretending it doesn't exist?  After all, I could generate a picture of a trans sexual being beaten by a mob and entitle it, "Getting What They Deserve," or "This Is Wrong."  Of course I could leave it untitled and let you choose where you allow your mind to roam. 

In closing I do want to add, just to be sure I was clear, I never meant to nor do I think that in any way that I inferred that Immy was wrong.  At least not from the images that I saw her define as "cute."

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

But there can be other intents also.  If the intent is ill (accepting the fact that we both agree abuse is wrong), do we speak up against it or do we just walk away pretending it doesn't exist?  After all, I could generate a picture of a trans sexual being beaten by a mob and entitle it, "Getting What They Deserve," or "This Is Wrong."  Of course I could leave it untitled and let you choose where you allow your mind to roam. 

---

That's a good point. Images can be used to promote hateful idelogies and defame minorities, which has often been done in the past. But in these cases, it is primarily the unambiguous ideological message that promotes hatred and intolerance.

I think we have to distinguish between this kind of propaganda artwork (which has little to do with art in my book), artwork that doesn't have any obvious message and only exists for the sake of art, and artwork that illustrates fictional stories. It is my belief that the last two types of art should never be subject to censorship. One can argue that governments should be allowed to censor hate speech, but censoring art is principally wrong imho.

I mean, what if an author writes a story about a transsexual who is beaten up by a mob? What if this story is made into a graphic novel? True, a few readers might think "yeah, s/he's getting what s/he deserves", but most of us would take this as social criticism that highlights the plight of transsexuals and decries intolerance. Even though we cannot be sure if this was the author's intent.

That's the thing about art and works of fiction, they are open to interpretation. And it is for this reason that we cannot possibly know the intent of the artist or author, or judge their mental health based on their work. I've read extremely shocking and violent stories written by highly acclaimed authors such as Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, or Chuck Palahniuk, and found myself thinking "How can a sane person imagine something like this? It's utterly revolting. What must be going on in their minds? Can this obsession with gore and violence possibly be called healthy?"

And yet all three authors are well-adjusted members of society. Except for Palahniuk, they're also husbands and fathers. None of them goes around murdering or torturing people. They are merely able to tap into the darkest, most terrifying parts of their imagination, and entertain these violent ideas without ever feeling the urge to act them out in reality. Their readership essentially does the same.

I think most people are able to compartmentalize in this way and have no trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality, except for a handful of disturbed individuals who would harm others with or without these works of fiction. Interestingly, the latter group of people seems to be much smaller in countries with a very liberal media policy. At least that's what the crime statistics in countries such as Japan suggest, as I've pointed out in one of my blog posts.