Sometimes I wonder if people who are so afraid of naked bodies are so afraid because they cant control themselves??
-el gringo -----Original Message----- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) D. Glenn Arthur and all, I'd like to respond more to your post, but lack the time and I need to go to lunch. Let's look at it from another simplistic viewpoint. The PDML has had little, if any, sexual content, art depicting nudity, art with sexual content, however one wishes to define it, in the past. Now two in one week. As you said, the term bombardment was used in a collective sense, not neccesarially accurate when used in reference to the PDML only. We have all done well and fine without it in the past... why bring it in now? How many more persons will be encouraged to present similar, if not stronger images? How many will not use any disgression when posting the link? That's probably all I'll post. I sincerely want this to be a Pentax/Photography forum. Nothing more, nothing less. Tom C. >From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of >Eve, the three shot series) >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:33:42 -0400 (EDT) > >I would have labelled this Off Topic, but it's actually about >the list even though it's not about photography or cameras >per se any more. > >Tom C wrote: > > 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. > >Gonna come back to that one... > > > 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What >is > > OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did >standards > > change? > >Mores have changed. Have _morals_ actually _declined_? Not >that I'm usually one to argue "value relativism", but it does >seem to me that in this particular area it is customs and >taboos that are at stake, not morality in any meaningfully >measurable sense. Does a shift in "decency" standards >necessarily correspond to an increase in theft, fraud, >murder, broken promises, usury, and so on, or is it really >more a change in fashion of sorts? Do people actually >behave in a less _moral_ manner today? > > > 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. > > Man/Woman/Child. > >No, that's a relatively recent development. Civilization >was built on the _extended_ family. > > > How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual > > images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. >Many, > > if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests >and > > desires. > >You may have a point there. I'm not convinced that you do, >but I can see that you might. It would mean that most people >are not wired the way I am, but I guess I should not find >that possibility surprising. > > > 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't > > bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? > >"Bombard"??? Okay, admittedly I have not looked at very >many of the PAW images and I'm a couple months behind on >the PUG, but -- and this is an actual question, not a >rhetorical one -- is this forum actually being _bombarded_ >with sexual images? Or is it just a couple of them this >week that's suddenly being interpreted as a bombardment? > >*IF* the answer is that it's just this week, then the next >question obviously becomes, does this mean that no sexual >imagery ever is the only acceptable (to you) guideline? > >Or is the perception that you are being "bombarded" here >a result of the bombardment with sexual imagery in the >world at large more than here, so that any inkling here, >however usual or unusual for here, is "oh no, not more of >this!" where the rest of "this" is on the telly and >billboards and such? > > > As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or > > disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can >certainly > > be called disparaging. > >Distort ... corrupt ... disrepect ... Re-examine? Question? >Re-interpret? Show another side of? Doesn't "disrespect" >imply _intent_, and doesn't "corrupt" depend on a particular >point of view? I *do* see where you're coming from on that >one -- there are things you could do to holy symbols or >depictions of my saviour which would similarly upset me, >to be honest (though this one does not) -- but I think you're >using language that polarizes the debate rather than fostering >communication on the points you're trying to get across. > >Bob Blakely wrote: >< Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now >< reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is >< suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks >< censorship in making requests? > >I'd say the request is in a grey area with regards to >concepts and definitions of censorship. No, this is >clearly not an example of the _legal_, or strict, >definition of censorship, but it shares much in common >with actual censorship. I'm _not_ going to claim that >it's morally equivalent, because, as I said, it's in a >grey area, but I do not think it is unreasonable for >people to have an initial emotional reaction the same >as they would react to a call for censorship. > >You see, it's advocacy of a community standard which >would impose censure on certain things; no formal >censor, since messages are not manually approved by >a moderator before posting, but it's an exhortation >for others to raise their voices in support of this >"no sexual bombardment" idea and _make_sexual_images_unwelcome_. >The result would be "self-censorship" not from an >innate sense of "I shouldn't do that", but from _fear_ >of community disapproval, complaint, argument ... >whatever force the would-be-censors can bring to >bear in this medium ... the fear of becoming >"outcast". > >It's a tricky thing. The request is, in some senses, >a reasonable one: "I don't want to see these things >and I would prefer a forum where they are not present". >But asking others to make them unwelcome means changing >the environment for others in a way that is, to them, >for the worse. And let's face it, it's really hard >to make such a request without the folks it's aimed >at feeling like it's an attempt to restraint them at >best, or to disparage them (as morally unclean) at >worst. It's going to _feel_ like censorship. So, it's >a delicate matter. > >When Bob W wrote: >/ please do not post this kind of thing to the list again, Collin. I'm >/ trying to keep medieval prejudice and ignorance out of my house. > >did you see that as being entirely facetious? 'Cause >while I can't tell which way Bob W meant it, I do know >people who make essentially the same statement in >complete and utter seriousness, usually with respect >to what they don't want their children exposed to. >They're not just being snarky. Can you see how it's >actually just as reasonable a request when viewed >objectively? And just as sticky for the same reasons? > > >At the same time, I would like to ask that those of >us who perceive such requests as censorshop try to >refrain from jumping the gun on accusations of >actual censorship, and to try to understand where >the request is coming from, so that we might find >solutions instead of just girding our loins for a >fight. "Censorship" is a pretty emotionally charged >word these days, so even when it's partially >applicable, saying it tends to make the other side >get all defensive. Yeah, we need to point out >the censorial aspects, but try to do so gently so >that others can see why you say it rather than >just making them go, "No I'm not!" > > >Fortunately, I do see room for a compromise here, >though I'm not certain everyone will see it as a >compromise. Actually, it's pretty close to the >status quo, which I suppose makes me a conservative... > >Cotty had written: ><> I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine >if ><> you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the >picture ><> in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the ><> photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view ><> the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have ><> written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are ><> suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original >poster ><> proceeded was fair and correct IMO. > >Right, the images are not embedded in the list >messages, merely pointed to. As long as suitably >useful guidance is provided so that each viewer >can reasonably choose whether to look, and the language >of that guidance is itself neither offensive nor >self-oppressive (that is, we can offer enough >information in value-neutral phrasing so as to >neither wind up having to effectively say, "my >pictures are dirty," nor veer wildly into "Political >Correctness" in either direction), then the mere >_existance_ of such works and mention of their >existance _ought_ give no offense. > >Of course, it might help if there were enough non-touchy >images being posted that the easily-offended (or rather, >the offended-by-sexuality) don't feel left out. But >has _that_ been a problem so far? > >The thing is, because this is no change -- or a >wee change perhaps -- from current practice, it >doesn't sound very compromise-y, I know. My suggesting >it is really a suggestion that the status quo already >_is_ a reasonable compromise. I think. IMHO. Etc. > > > >I just hope something I've said here is actually useful. > > -- Glenn >
