|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2008 12:51:22 PM · #151 |
| While I was reading this thread, Sir Mix A Lot's 'Baby Got Back' came on my computer (where the music lives). Do you guys remember how scandalous that video was? Haha. How times change.... |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:51:44 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by wavelength:
If the voting populace want to make a law based on whatever the hell they want, that's their right under the U.S. constitution, their state constitutions, and their local charters. Get over it. |
No, their laws have to comply with the Constitution, including the First Amendment. |
The A&F photos are commercial speech, which -- appropriately, imho -- doesn't get the same level of protection from the Constitution that is afforded to non-commercial speech. Banning or regulating this type of speech does not violate the First Amendment.
The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces. My objection is not to the law, or the actions of the police, per se. My objection is to the dysfunctional and irrational attitudes that the U.S. populace have toward sex and sexuality. The ban -- if that is what it is -- on these images is, to my eyes, part and parcel of this dysfunction. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:59:33 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Don't make fun of my God. |
Making fun of your, or anyone's, God is not commercial speech -- unfortunately for you, I suppose -- it falls into the category of "core speech" (speech with political implications) and is fully protected by the First Amendment.
I will feel free to mock the old codger at my pleasure. You should feel free to believe that my doing so will send me straight to hell upon my death.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:05:53 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Don't make fun of my God. |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Making fun of your, or anyone's, God is not commercial speech -- unfortunately for you, I suppose -- it falls into the category of "core speech" (speech with political implications) and is fully protected by the First Amendment.
I will feel free to mock the old codger at my pleasure. You should feel free to believe that my doing so will send me straight to hell upon my death. |
And that is what freedom of speech is all about.
Nicely put.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:19:30 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces. My objection is not to the law, or the actions of the police, per se. My objection is to the dysfunctional and irrational attitudes that the U.S. populace have toward sex and sexuality. The ban -- if that is what it is -- on these images is, to my eyes, part and parcel of this dysfunction. |
We're all just trying to do our best. STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, divorce are all rampant in the entire western world (not just the US). I am doing my best to try to save my kids from all of those. I'd appreciate not being called "dysfunctional" for my attempts. I know not everybody agrees with my opinion and the idea of not having sex until marriage (and only within marriage) is viewed as "quaint", but it is my rational approach to avoiding all the harmful things I mentioned above. Is it the best way? While I believe so, I'm open to the idea I could be wrong.
I just hate it that adherents to one view feel totally justified in throwing out words like "nutjobs" or "dysfunctional" in what is otherwise a civilized conversation. (Although I would likewise call out people who use such words to describe those who are ok with such advertising. Personally, I do feel "promiscuous" implies many sexual partners. Serial monogamy could eventually become promiscuous over time, but doesn't have to.) |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:23:00 PM · #156 |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:31:11 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Oooh pretty guys.. @_@ |
Thank you ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:32:21 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces. My objection is not to the law, or the actions of the police, per se. My objection is to the dysfunctional and irrational attitudes that the U.S. populace have toward sex and sexuality. The ban -- if that is what it is -- on these images is, to my eyes, part and parcel of this dysfunction. |
We're all just trying to do our best. STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, divorce are all rampant in the entire western world (not just the US). I am doing my best to try to save my kids from all of those. I'd appreciate not being called "dysfunctional" for my attempts. I know not everybody agrees with my opinion and the idea of not having sex until marriage (and only within marriage) is viewed as "quaint", but it is my rational approach to avoiding all the harmful things I mentioned above. Is it the best way? While I believe so, I'm open to the idea I could be wrong.
I just hate it that adherents to one view feel totally justified in throwing out words like "nutjobs" or "dysfunctional" in what is otherwise a civilized conversation. (Although I would likewise call out people who use such words to describe those who are ok with such advertising. Personally, I do feel "promiscuous" implies many sexual partners. Serial monogamy could eventually become promiscuous over time, but doesn't have to.) |
No one's saying you're dysfunctional for wanting to protect your children from the ills of the world... it's a very honerable thing to want that (and btw I refer to myself as a nut job). on the other hand isn't it strange how the areas of the world that are less repressive about sexuality are also the areas of the world that have fewer instances of all the things you're trying to protect your children from?
the human form is a beautiful thing... what people do with their bodies (and to others) is what is not beautiful... sheilding your children from every image and consept that includes some show of skin isn't going to protect your children from that other stuff... teaching your children what is beautiful in this world, and what isn't and how to avoid the latter will. Openess and freedom always offer far more protection then hiding all in the hope that they won't eventually find it themselves. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:32:42 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces. My objection is not to the law, or the actions of the police, per se. My objection is to the dysfunctional and irrational attitudes that the U.S. populace have toward sex and sexuality. The ban -- if that is what it is -- on these images is, to my eyes, part and parcel of this dysfunction. |
We're all just trying to do our best. STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, divorce are all rampant in the entire western world (not just the US). I am doing my best to try to save my kids from all of those. I'd appreciate not being called "dysfunctional" for my attempts. I know not everybody agrees with my opinion and the idea of not having sex until marriage (and only within marriage) is viewed as "quaint", but it is my rational approach to avoiding all the harmful things I mentioned above. Is it the best way? While I believe so, I'm open to the idea I could be wrong.
I just hate it that adherents to one view feel totally justified in throwing out words like "nutjobs" or "dysfunctional" in what is otherwise a civilized conversation. (Although I would likewise call out people who use such words to describe those who are ok with such advertising. Personally, I do feel "promiscuous" implies many sexual partners. Serial monogamy could eventually become promiscuous over time, but doesn't have to.) |
Those I refer to as nutjobs have fully earned that title and likely much worse.
The sad fact is that by making the human form and sex things that are shameful, secret, taboo and things that must be whispered about or covered at all times in the name of being "moral", simply makes exposing, flaunting of the body as well as premature sexual behavior that much more of a temptation.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:34:40 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces. My objection is not to the law, or the actions of the police, per se. My objection is to the dysfunctional and irrational attitudes that the U.S. populace have toward sex and sexuality. The ban -- if that is what it is -- on these images is, to my eyes, part and parcel of this dysfunction. |
We're all just trying to do our best. STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, divorce are all rampant in the entire western world (not just the US). I am doing my best to try to save my kids from all of those. I'd appreciate not being called "dysfunctional" for my attempts. I know not everybody agrees with my opinion and the idea of not having sex until marriage (and only within marriage) is viewed as "quaint", but it is my rational approach to avoiding all the harmful things I mentioned above. Is it the best way? While I believe so, I'm open to the idea I could be wrong.
I just hate it that adherents to one view feel totally justified in throwing out words like "nutjobs" or "dysfunctional" in what is otherwise a civilized conversation. (Although I would likewise call out people who use such words to describe those who are ok with such advertising. Personally, I do feel "promiscuous" implies many sexual partners. Serial monogamy could eventually become promiscuous over time, but doesn't have to.) |
Actually, a lot of the ills that you point out above are not "rampant in the entire western world" as there are several countries who have much more... er, "promiscuous" attitudes toward sex and, oddly enough, have much lower rates of all of the problems that you listed. Higher levels of "sex-positive" attitudes in a society does seem to directly correlate to with lower rates of STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and divorce.
That said, my use of the word dysfunctional was not to call out any particular person. I have no problem believing that you are trying to do the best you can to educate your kids to make responsible decisions about their lives. When I say the U.S. has a dysfunctional attitude toward sex and sexuality, I refer to the general attitudes of the population at large -- something I don't necessarily exclude myself from, btw -- where we are at the same time: 1) obsessed with sex as a culture, and 2) irrationally fearful of sex, sexuality, and expressions of same. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:34:52 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces. My objection is not to the law, or the actions of the police, per se. My objection is to the dysfunctional and irrational attitudes that the U.S. populace have toward sex and sexuality. The ban -- if that is what it is -- on these images is, to my eyes, part and parcel of this dysfunction. |
We're all just trying to do our best. STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, divorce are all rampant in the entire western world (not just the US). I am doing my best to try to save my kids from all of those. I'd appreciate not being called "dysfunctional" for my attempts. I know not everybody agrees with my opinion and the idea of not having sex until marriage (and only within marriage) is viewed as "quaint", but it is my rational approach to avoiding all the harmful things I mentioned above. Is it the best way? While I believe so, I'm open to the idea I could be wrong.
I just hate it that adherents to one view feel totally justified in throwing out words like "nutjobs" or "dysfunctional" in what is otherwise a civilized conversation. (Although I would likewise call out people who use such words to describe those who are ok with such advertising. Personally, I do feel "promiscuous" implies many sexual partners. Serial monogamy could eventually become promiscuous over time, but doesn't have to.) |
Those I refer to as nutjobs have fully earned that title and likely much worse.
The sad fact is that by making the human form and sex things that are shameful, secret, taboo and things that must be whispered about or covered at all times in the name of being "moral", simply makes exposing, flaunting of the body as well as premature sexual behavior that much more of a temptation. |
what I said in two paragraphs shaken down to a few sentances... well put and very true |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:37:00 PM · #162 |
I like that â If you donât like it, Donât look.â, and â donât force your issues on me.â.
I smoke, I should be able to smoke where I wish, if you donât wish to smell it, plug your nose and donât smell it. Smoking is my choice, donât force your issues on me!!
BTW, I have always tried to respect non smokers, the above is to make a small point.. Mom might not like little Johnny and Suzy, looking at half naked people while on the way to KB Toys, anymore than you might want to smell my smoke on your way to look at images âinâ A&F. There is place for everything. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:37:35 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by JimiRose:
People in Paris have no problem walking with their kids down a street that has a 10 foot poster of a woman with no top on because the parents see it as beauty, not scandal. |
When a nude challenge comes up on this site, I enjoy seeing the results, I don't mind seeing paintings of nude people, etc. That's beautiful to me. But I don't like seeing ads that use a person's body to sell something. That isn't beautiful to me anymore. It seems to me like it treats the body as some cheap object rather than the thing of beauty that it is. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:39:33 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We're all just trying to do our best. STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, divorce are all rampant in the entire western world (not just the US). I am doing my best to try to save my kids from all of those. I'd appreciate not being called "dysfunctional" for my attempts. I know not everybody agrees with my opinion and the idea of not having sex until marriage (and only within marriage) is viewed as "quaint", but it is my rational approach to avoiding all the harmful things I mentioned above. Is it the best way? While I believe so, I'm open to the idea I could be wrong.
I just hate it that adherents to one view feel totally justified in throwing out words like "nutjobs" or "dysfunctional" in what is otherwise a civilized conversation. (Although I would likewise call out people who use such words to describe those who are ok with such advertising. Personally, I do feel "promiscuous" implies many sexual partners. Serial monogamy could eventually become promiscuous over time, but doesn't have to.) |
Well, now there you go lumping two distinctly different categories.
My wife and I have been monogamous for 29 years.....we have been married for 24.
I certainly don't consider the 24 years of legal marriage wityhout adultery as quaint......it's in my belief system.
But if my wife would come to me and state unequivocally that she no longer loved me and wanted a divorce, I cannot see where my refusing a divorce would solve anything.
You wanna tell me I'm a vile heathen sinner because it took us five years to get married?
I was married for the first three years to my first wife. I left her and stopped having "proper" marital relations because the relationship was over. She refused me a divorce and I had to file under the no-fault laws of the state.
By our standards, since we were faithful to each other, this was acceptable.
Was it right of my first wife to refuse a divorce from a dead relationship?
There are so many different ways for their to be extenuating circumstances that I find it pretty hard to cast stones on someone else's beliefs as long as they don't try to force them on me.
That's also why it sometimes sucks to not have these conversations in person. So much nuance gets lost in translation.
Oh, and in my "opinion", yes, Americans have way too many hangups about the human body and nudity.
I'd rather have my daughter watch an honest, well done drama with a tasteful love scene, than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Of course, then we're back to Square 1 with defining "Tasteful", right?......8>)
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:46:40 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by JimiRose:
People in Paris have no problem walking with their kids down a street that has a 10 foot poster of a woman with no top on because the parents see it as beauty, not scandal. |
When a nude challenge comes up on this site, I enjoy seeing the results, I don't mind seeing paintings of nude people, etc. That's beautiful to me. But I don't like seeing ads that use a person's body to sell something. That isn't beautiful to me anymore. It seems to me like it treats the body as some cheap object rather than the thing of beauty that it is. |
That's an interesting take on the situation, but it's different from saying that A&F should be prosecuted for displaying obscene material in the form of any of its ads, and that store managers should be jailed. That's an outrage. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:47:53 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Actually, a lot of the ills that you point out above are not "rampant in the entire western world" as there are several countries who have much more... er, "promiscuous" attitudes toward sex and, oddly enough, have much lower rates of all of the problems that you listed. Higher levels of "sex-positive" attitudes in a society does seem to directly correlate to with lower rates of STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and divorce.
|
I would honestly love to see some stats on this. Do you have stats for divorce, STDs, teen pregancy and abortions for, say, the US and representative European countries? |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:48:25 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by klstover:
When a nude challenge comes up on this site, I enjoy seeing the results, I don't mind seeing paintings of nude people, etc. That's beautiful to me. But I don't like seeing ads that use a person's body to sell something. That isn't beautiful to me anymore. It seems to me like it treats the body as some cheap object rather than the thing of beauty that it is. |
I think rock and roll is a thing of beauty, but don't mind it being played in the background of ads.
Thing is advertisers want to appeal to people, so they use imagery and sound that appeal to people's most basic desires. Sex is top on the list, because WE as a species (and especially Western culture) are obsessed with it.
Sex has been made taboo (because you can't just turn off a basic animal need). Taboo is fun, especially for the young. If you're selling to the young, you sell them fun. Sex = taboo = fun = sales, simple advertising. Take the taboo out of the equation and the whole thing falls apart. It's not the liberals that are making the whole thing work for advertisers.
The more this type of action happens (scandal over these ads) the more taboo sex will become and thus the more effective it'll be as an advertising tool.
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 13:58:39.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:49:22 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by JimiRose:
People in Paris have no problem walking with their kids down a street that has a 10 foot poster of a woman with no top on because the parents see it as beauty, not scandal. |
When a nude challenge comes up on this site, I enjoy seeing the results, I don't mind seeing paintings of nude people, etc. That's beautiful to me. But I don't like seeing ads that use a person's body to sell something. That isn't beautiful to me anymore. It seems to me like it treats the body as some cheap object rather than the thing of beauty that it is. |
That's an interesting take on the situation, but it's different from saying that A&F should be prosecuted for displaying obscene material in the form of any of its ads, and that store managers should be jailed. That's an outrage. |
Well, I wasn't trying to comment on that particular issue, what with not reading the original link. :-) |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:54:21 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by wavelength:
The global warming freaks , |
Originally posted by citymars:
Oh, dear. I guess those would be the scientists trying to save your ass. |
Yeah, where would I be in life without the guidance of people like Al Gore.
Certainly I wouldn't be smart enough to figure out the last few decades of environmentalism all by myself.
PLEASE! |
I mentioned scientists, not political figures. Besides, what does this have to do with the fact that man-caused global warming is real yet still considered by many to be a liberal myth? That they call those trying to do something about it "freaks?"
EDIT: Never mind, global warming climate change discussions should go be buried in those other threads.
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 14:00:34. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:57:48 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would honestly love to see some stats on this. Do you have stats for divorce, STDs, teen pregancy and abortions for, say, the US and representative European countries? |
In a previous post here I referenced rape and homicide in this discussion when comparing the US and Europe. Here are some statistics. Caveat: this is an old report, 1988.
Per 100,000 people, there were 36 rapes in the US compared with 5 in Europe. There were ten murders per 100,000, compared with 3.3 in Finland (highest) and 0.7 in Greece and Ireland (lowest). |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:59:47 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Actually, a lot of the ills that you point out above are not "rampant in the entire western world" as there are several countries who have much more... er, "promiscuous" attitudes toward sex and, oddly enough, have much lower rates of all of the problems that you listed. Higher levels of "sex-positive" attitudes in a society does seem to directly correlate to with lower rates of STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and divorce.
|
I would honestly love to see some stats on this. Do you have stats for divorce, STDs, teen pregancy and abortions for, say, the US and representative European countries? |
Teen pregnancy rates can be seen by clicking on the graph in the British Medical Journal article. 1998 data, so not fully current, but does give some idea. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 02:03:31 PM · #172 |
The irony of democracy.....is that the masses aren't democratic, as exhibited by many in this thread including the OP. Free speech is free speech whether you agree with it or not. You do have the right to be offended but not to silence the speaker. This will be thrown out in court. Too bad. There are real crimes being committed in Virginia Beach that need this kind of attention. We don't need to have our thoughts patrolled.
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 14:04:37. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 02:10:34 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would honestly love to see some stats on this. Do you have stats for divorce, STDs, teen pregancy and abortions for, say, the US and representative European countries? |
In a previous post here I referenced rape and homicide in this discussion when comparing the US and Europe. Here are some statistics. Caveat: this is an old report, 1988.
Per 100,000 people, there were 36 rapes in the US compared with 5 in Europe. There were ten murders per 100,000, compared with 3.3 in Finland (highest) and 0.7 in Greece and Ireland (lowest). |
Rape is a crime of dominance and violence, not sexuality. I wouldn't consider it part of this discussion.
I did find some rates for divorce, STDs, teen pregancy, and abortion. The US ranks among the worst in most of those categories, but European countries varied wildly. I doubt something as simple as "sexual openness" is responsible for these complex issues. For example. Sweden had a very high divorce rate (among European nations), but has a very low STD rate (compared again to other countries). We therefore cannot attribute sexual attitudes to lowering both of those.
That being said, the US definitely has a cultural problem with all the problems I mentioned. While a lack of openness in sex education is likely among the issues that contribute, I don't think this type of "openness" is the same as allowing breasts in advertising or a strip club next to Baby Gap in the mall. Personally I have already had the "birds and the bees" talk with my son who is seven. I think sex is wonderful, awesome, and a ton of fun. I love that I have zero worry about STDs (and I'm not implying that each and every one of you who disagree with me have one! :)). I love that I had no worry about getting a gal pregnant in high school. I love not dealing with the psychological baggage of previous lovers in my relationship with my wife. I'm just listing some benefits found in the odd lifestyle I have chosen.
But we're waaaay off topic now. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 02:13:12 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Actually, a lot of the ills that you point out above are not "rampant in the entire western world" as there are several countries who have much more... er, "promiscuous" attitudes toward sex and, oddly enough, have much lower rates of all of the problems that you listed. Higher levels of "sex-positive" attitudes in a society does seem to directly correlate to with lower rates of STDs, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and divorce.
|
I would honestly love to see some stats on this. Do you have stats for divorce, STDs, teen pregancy and abortions for, say, the US and representative European countries? |
Here is one such citation to add to those already provided: The Challenge of STD Prevention in the U.S.
Note: "Compared to the U.S. (which has among the highest STD rates in the industrialized world), Canada and some countries in Western Europe have nearly eliminated infectious syphilis. U.S. rates of gonorrhea are 50 to 100 times higher than rates in Sweden."
And another: Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and U.S.
Not only are the rates of disease, pregnancy, birth and abortion higher in the U.S. than in the European countries listed, the report notes that U.S. teens have sex at the same or earlier ages than do their counterparts in Europe and have more sexual partners than European teens. This data correlates nicely with the recent reports that found that U.S. kids who received "Abstinence Only" education were statistically more likely to engage in unsafe sexual behaviors and consequently more likely to end up with an STD or unwanted pregnancy than U.S. kids who had received comprehensive sex education (which is more of the style available in most European countries, UK excepted).
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 14:25:39. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 02:16:00 PM · #175 |
Soooooo... we can't have an 'obscene' picture in a store... that's too offensive...
But we can reproduce it all over the place uncensored in a news article.
And the newspaper editors are not arrested on obscenity charges.
WHAT? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:56:30 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:56:30 AM EDT.
|
