I think this puritanical sense of "morality" regarding the naked body that is so prevelent in the US is what actually makes nudity into "porn". The more you hide something or label it "taboo" the more people are inticed, it changes a natural and healthy attraction into a guilty pleasure. As fasion changes so does what is sexy, in some countries the mere sight of a womans bare ankle can cause a man to drool with lust. I remember my first art class in which we did studies of nudes, all the guys were trying hard not to gawk and pant but by the third week we barely even noticed there was a nude man/woman standing in the room.
It is important to differentiate between hardcore sexual pornography and softcore pornography. The levels of which I am sure you are familiar with. I am not complaining about nudity, at all, actually I think that society does a pretty good job keeping hardcore porn away from children. But it seems to me that all forms of softcore porn are readily available to children, from TV to magazines... The pictures that I posted (especially the one of the young girl on the rock) are mild forms of softcore pornography... These images are presented to excite in order to sell a product or a person. There is no way of hiding these images from children, and it is important that the parent teach values, but it becomes difficult when media teaches the opposite. If I teach my daughter that she shouldn't be wearing thongs that stick out of hot pants at 13 years old and allow her to go to the mall and see 250 other girls doing just the opposite, the values that I try and teach become null. People, especially children, learn by those that are around them and conform to the popular standards set by the society that they live in. If society bombards the youth of America with these images, then they will learn to think of them as "normal" and "okay" despite whatever I teach. I become a stuffy old parent seemingly out of touch with the new generation. Then she grows up, and her values as lessened, in turn, lessing the values of her children. She becomes the old fart, and eventually her child is experimenting with becomming sexually inticing at an even younger age. That's why I used the term downward spiral. --- Your defense against these images is justified in a world where the media sets standards instead of parents. And unfortunately, that is becomming the backbone of this country. Morality is stiffled by these images. To you, it might be fine to display youth in this way, and I can somewhat see the point. But this is not about beauty or ART, it is about SELLING. Media is raping the innocence of children to further their end... This is only the beginning, and unless there is some sort of censorship and understanding, children become slaves to the image that TV is selling. --- Ironically, I don't think that these images are even marketed to children, but to adults - only that they use the innocence and beauty of youth as a medium to push what they are selling. This is unjustified, because it corrupts the minds of the kids who will undoubtedly see them. Again, I don't see an answer to this problem, but to deny that there is a problem and to turn your head does nothing to help the minds of the masses. The future of Pornography (hardcore and softcore) must root somewhere, and these images are only there so that impressionable minds will submit to imagery instead of morality.
BTW: Did you know that it is okay to display children of any age in the nude; legs spread or whatnot under the pretext of ART... As long as there is no SEXUAL contact, it is not considered pornography and is therefore not illegal. There is no age limit on ART... This is sad really, because many people use the pretext ART as an excuse to exploit the young. Is that okay? Should we not care about that either?
I think passing the blame off on parents entirely is a shitty excuse that the media has invented in order to justify what they are blatently doing. I feel sorry for anyone that buys into that garbage. Parents, yes, are an important influence in a child's life, but to say that can be the only influence is naive. Children are people too, with minds of their own - which are not only scultpted through their family but also through the rest of the world.
Well no. You have absolutely no right to limit someone elses choice as long as they are not harming you. The simple fact is that you have the OPTION of watching television and subscribing to thier magazines. This isn't a billboard, this is TV. Seeing as how you can op-out, you don't have a right to limit someone else. Yes, and hopefully intelligent people. That is why you EXPLAIN what is wrong and don't just say 'it is wrong'. If you can't explain it, then you are going to have issues.
But they do harm - psychologically. These same images on TV can be seen in billboards, the mall, K-Mart, newpaper stands, and the Internet. They are everywhere. Turning off the TV would do nothing, because TV influences others who follow its lead. Other Children, and other media outlets.
I'm sorry... youre TV doesn't have an off switch? And that's even assuming you can show that it is damaging. Feeding your kid mercury also does psychological damage, but you don't let them eat that.
But see the thing is..You can't blame the parents [all of it atleast]. Now accoridng to the medis that crap is 'in'. Its a style. Styles are different from when the nowaday parents were children. They don't know whats appropriate or not. Hell! Have you been into some of those stores? If you been in some big brand name stores lately, all they sell is that type of clothing. I for one think those pictures were degrading. Its just wrong. Thank god that noone here found them 'sexy' persay. If they did it would prove that they are just sick perverts. They are just little girls being pulled into the 'grown-up' world. Kids only see the media as a reference on how to act/dress. I will give you that its not the stars [Brittany, olsen blah blah] fualt for what they wear. But they are rolemodels if they want to be or not. Its all of these things that have been discussed on why more girls are aneroxic, blumic, ect. These are mental disease people. Kids now see those clothes as what is 'sexy' and according to the media everyone should thrives to be sexy. It just doesn't seem right to me. And if it does to you well then you must have more issuse then I do.
But if everyone else in the world was eating mercury and not dying, don't you think a child would try it. Eve ate the apple, and God told her not to.
If every kid in the world was eating mercury and not dying it wouldn't be poisonous so who cares if they tried it?
If the parent cared - do you really believe he could stop his child from eating it? My point is that God couldn't even stop his children from being inticed by the evils of the world, what makes you think the everyday mother/father figure could.
I guess you don't have the phrase "if everybody jumped off a bridge, would youi" anymore? Smoking was also a 'style'... that doesn't mean everyone did it.
Personally, I think that many of the pictures plastered all over teeny bopper mags are sexy... including the one of the girl on the rock on page two of this post. That's the problem.
If everyone else jumped off a bridge (and survived), then the individual who didn't jump off the bridge would be an outcast. Literally and figuratively... Having individual thought is discouraged in modern society.
