OK everyone is against pedophilia but here, there may be some overreacting. Read before downvoting, thank you
Think cover art of Blind Faith (topless girl holding silver-colored airplane model) from 1969 or Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy from 1973. Nobody can credibly claim obscenity, sexualized setting or pedophilic content in those photographic images. Those albums remain widely available on reputable websites.
And that's the point. Why should he get to be the determining factor of OUR artistic appreciation? Have you seen HIS fucking art collection? LOL
Why should we as normal society have to tailor our tastes to the lowest common denominator? So if there's ONE sick fuck out there who thinks that artwork is even slightly sexy, then Led Zeppelin needs to be banned forever!
We should ban the Podestas instead.
EDIT: LOL @ downvotes to this comment.
OK, you win, (ex-)redditors. We should NOT ban the Podestas instead. We SHOULD lower our artistic tastes to the lowest common denominator of society. If some pedo faggot looks at Thomas Gainsborough's The Blue Boy and starts yanking his pud, BOOM, it's porn! Down it comes.
"News flash"? LOL here's one for you: your blinkered opinion doesn't qualify as news.
The nude human form by itself is not sexual, perverted, obscene, or pedophilic. It was created by God in his image; or if you don't believe in that, it was created by Mother Nature and is thus perfectly fine and innocent, in and of itself. It's when people ADD sexuality to it that it becomes sexualized.
Banning child nudity isn't a judgment on nudity, it's about protecting the innocent (children) from predators. There is no law you can create which allows for 'artistic' use of nudity that a predator can not exploit.
You sound like a pedo justifying his pedophilia dude. Just being honest. Pull yourself back from the brink because you're standing on podestas doorstep about to ring the bell
That opinion is valid, yet the stubborn fact remains that this famous work of art is not a depiction of sex, pedophilia or perversion. Yes the cover was released amid controversy to heighten publicity and sell records, at a time when mere nudity—think Woodstock—was more innocent, not the heart attack-inducing event it is for today's puritanical society (which nonetheless stages "pride" parades featuring little boys dressed in drag). But the point is this is not abusive art.
When I was growing up if you went to the beach, the littlest kids often had no swimsuit, and nobody thought a thing of it. Now that's gone forever, but I'm still not willing to live in world where every instance of art depicting a minor in his or her natural state, however innocent or nonsexual or tasteful, is automatically denigrated as child pornography.
I have no issues at all with stuff like that. Nothing wrong with porn, either. I don't get the judgmental, controlling garbage I see around here sometimes. For me, it's what I'm trying to get away from and what I'm against. End censorship, period. I don't like Twitter for other reasons.
OK everyone is against pedophilia but here, there may be some overreacting. Read before downvoting, thank you
Think cover art of Blind Faith (topless girl holding silver-colored airplane model) from 1969 or Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy from 1973. Nobody can credibly claim obscenity, sexualized setting or pedophilic content in those photographic images. Those albums remain widely available on reputable websites.
News flash buddy, that's some pedo shit right there.
"Nobody can credibly claim obscenity, sexualized setting or pedophilic content in those photographic images. Here's some 14 yo titties btw"
The 14 year old titties sets off the weird detector. House of the Holy not so much, but I'm not John Podesta either so Idono.
And that's the point. Why should he get to be the determining factor of OUR artistic appreciation? Have you seen HIS fucking art collection? LOL
Why should we as normal society have to tailor our tastes to the lowest common denominator? So if there's ONE sick fuck out there who thinks that artwork is even slightly sexy, then Led Zeppelin needs to be banned forever!
We should ban the Podestas instead.
EDIT: LOL @ downvotes to this comment.
OK, you win, (ex-)redditors. We should NOT ban the Podestas instead. We SHOULD lower our artistic tastes to the lowest common denominator of society. If some pedo faggot looks at Thomas Gainsborough's The Blue Boy and starts yanking his pud, BOOM, it's porn! Down it comes.
I have to agree with you. How about we just don't use naked minors for publicity?
"News flash"? LOL here's one for you: your blinkered opinion doesn't qualify as news.
The nude human form by itself is not sexual, perverted, obscene, or pedophilic. It was created by God in his image; or if you don't believe in that, it was created by Mother Nature and is thus perfectly fine and innocent, in and of itself. It's when people ADD sexuality to it that it becomes sexualized.
TLDR: Nudity does not equal sex.
Banning child nudity isn't a judgment on nudity, it's about protecting the innocent (children) from predators. There is no law you can create which allows for 'artistic' use of nudity that a predator can not exploit.
OK, no more nudity at all in art: it could be exploited
Got it
We agree to disagree :)
You sound like a pedo justifying his pedophilia dude. Just being honest. Pull yourself back from the brink because you're standing on podestas doorstep about to ring the bell
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a pedo."
Weak.
I think a better example would be Renaissance cherubs (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JZSjq1Znsmo/ToNeoN304qI/AAAAAAAAAMI/7tGhLYmkuU4/s1600/cherub.jpg) or Anne Geddes style photography (https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/emily-holding-laura-anne-geddes.jpg).
That opinion is valid, yet the stubborn fact remains that this famous work of art is not a depiction of sex, pedophilia or perversion. Yes the cover was released amid controversy to heighten publicity and sell records, at a time when mere nudity—think Woodstock—was more innocent, not the heart attack-inducing event it is for today's puritanical society (which nonetheless stages "pride" parades featuring little boys dressed in drag). But the point is this is not abusive art.
When I was growing up if you went to the beach, the littlest kids often had no swimsuit, and nobody thought a thing of it. Now that's gone forever, but I'm still not willing to live in world where every instance of art depicting a minor in his or her natural state, however innocent or nonsexual or tasteful, is automatically denigrated as child pornography.
Bro I thought you were cool in the other thread but srsly? Fuck no never
I have no issues at all with stuff like that. Nothing wrong with porn, either. I don't get the judgmental, controlling garbage I see around here sometimes. For me, it's what I'm trying to get away from and what I'm against. End censorship, period. I don't like Twitter for other reasons.
Upvoted, on the condition that you don't mean "nothing wrong with child porn," just legal porn.
Well, if it's illegal, there's something wrong with it. :/. I was talking about legal porn.
Roger