What's in a breast: Ethics of the upper body

[Garbarsardar]

Below you will find 4 pictures of female breasts. Please state your reasons, and the conditions under you would find this depiction objectional.
<Disclaimer: This topic has a great spam magnet potential. The first spamming post will lead to the immediate vaporization of the thread. I am asking any present moderator to completely eliminate, not just close, this topic in case of spam. (and Garbarsardar, well known for his uncontrollable temper will launch vicious personal attacks on the first spammer which will result in the banning of both... :whistle )>

1.
2.
3.
4.

[NailX]

I have no problem in any really. It just flesh, who cares. I find it odd how people are offened by that stuff and yet not blood and gore and all that. Like killing okay but the human body a no no. Meh, personally people can do what they want, i am not comfterble with my body to get naked around others so i don&#39;t but others can. Well, as long as they not some random guy who pushing up against me and so on, you get the idea.

[madd069]

This is porn and i will get it closed&#33; Please no more post untill tis is verified ok or closed.

[hormiga]

Originally posted by madd069@May 17 2005, 11:43 PM
This is porn and i will get it closed&#33; Please no more post untill tis is verified ok or closed.

Pornography:
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).


It is arguable that a topless woman isnt "porn" it really isnt sexually explicit.

(picture 3 is a yahooo sign by the way)

[maxiumus_pooh]

Originally posted by madd069@May 17 2005, 10:43 PM
This is porn and i will get it closed&#33; Please no more post untill tis is verified ok or closed.

I dunno, it&#39;s not that black and white, really. The pic of the statue is glorious art, and should definitely not be labled as porn. The mother breastfeeding is a life function, and for many highly ethical reasons is certainly not porn. If you disagree, wait until you become a parent or do the research on how difficult and challenging it already is for a mother to breastfeed in the modern world. The blond woman could be regarded as porn, as she is quite beautiful to the western eye, and in the context of her own times and society, walking around bare breasted is taboo. The photo of the tribal woman with her child is an interesting one. It is an actual photo, not a sculpture, and she is not performing an action directly conducive to life, so it is similar to the black and white of the western woman. However, in her society/time, there is nothing taboo about going around bare breasted. If that same woman were to walk around bare breasted in down town newyork, she&#39;d get ticketed (or a money offer :rolleyes ).
So I disagree that this thread is strictly porn.

[madd069]

fine fine.. leave me alone now

[maxiumus_pooh]

Originally posted by madd069@May 17 2005, 10:53 PM
fine fine.. leave me alone now

:lol Ha ha ha ha&#33;&#33;&#33; WTF???? I like you already, maddog :lol

[smack]

I would guess that #4 is objectionable to the general populace.

Reason: A picture like that, with no context, and clearly not art in itself, is neither documentary (an article on necklaces amongst nudists in 1950&#39;s California, for instance), nor educational, nor art. Therefore it is a mechanism of communication in itself. As such, considering the lack of context, the only message recieved is &#39;breasts&#39;. Pictograms or cryptographically conveying meaning in that way only plays on the timidity of our social taboos, whereas simply using the word &#39;breasts&#39; would do so without controversy.

I do doubt anyone on the board would actually be offended, however, considering that some will be tempted to get hyped up about it, the picture is actually more along the lines of &#39;trolling&#39; than pornographic. (Edit: Nevermind&#33; I have checked with my superiors who think its fine)

And by the way, I don&#39;t mind a bit, only mind cleaning up a case of someone being offended or put off, or the site getting heat for no good reason. I&#39;ll be back.

[Garbarsardar]

@M_P That is why I chose the last picture. I know that as a standalone it would be debatable, but put it in a cultural context, and suddely it becomes relatively benign. I think that morality and aesthetics, usually go hand in hand.

[madd069]

Originally posted by maxiumus_pooh@May 17 2005, 10:55 PM
:lol Ha ha ha ha&#33;&#33;&#33; WTF???? I like you already, maddog :lol

Why does everyone call me maddog?? Does 069 look like dog? It wasnt spose to

Is it just me or is pic #3 the yahoo sign?

[Garbarsardar]

@ Smack. In making the poll it took me over 1h to choose the pictures. Picture 4 is deliberately not art, or education, or documentary. I deliberately put it last. Because after seeing the other 3, it becomes somehow less offensive, and subsequently is not singled out.

[maxiumus_pooh]

Originally posted by madd069@May 17 2005, 11:00 PM
Why does everyone call me maddog?? Does 069 look like dog? It wasnt spose to

Is it just me or is pic #3 the yahoo sign?

Sorry, Mad. I think if one just quickly glances at your name it appears to be &#39;maddog&#39;. I actually thought you did that purposely as neat imagery trick.
@ Smack. A very reasonable explanation. I really appreciate it when modders give answers that don&#39;t scare one into not posting again. I also learned what &#39;trolling&#39; means, I think. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but a troll is someone who posts sherely for the intent of creating a poopstorm of angst and antagonism?

[smack]

I&#39;m going to try to be as transparent as possible with moderating. I don&#39;t want to take away from the actual discussion though, so if anyone would like to talk to me further about it, perhaps PM is a good way. That way, the thread can stay on the topic at hand. I&#39;ll PM a response to Garbarsardar now. Carry on discussing

[CrayonVonCaesar]

I find Nike, addidassasas and other branded Cloathing offensive.
These pics are simply the human females body.
How, if you are not:
1. a nun or
2. a body starved old religious nut or
3. a sociopath could you be offended by these pics?

[maxiumus_pooh]

Originally posted by Crayon@May 17 2005, 11:15 PM
I find Nike, addidassasas and other branded Cloathing offensive.
These pics are simply the human females body.
How, if you are not:
1. a nun or
2. a body starved old religious nut or
3. a sociopath could you be offended by these pics?

Very good point about pop cult adds. Aside from that, we are bombarded, saturated with porn/sex on beer commercials, sit coms, movies, music lyrics/videos and the list goes on. The raciest of those four pics, the b&w yahoo woman, pales in comparison to the smut that comes on on showcase, when children are still awake and surifing the tube.

[Spartan]

I find no sexual situations, oriented or otherwise in any of the images so as far as I&#39;m concerned they are not pornographic and this thread is fine.
-Spartan

[Gelatinous Cube]

I think it takes a very sad and very special kind of person ot be offended by Nudity. This is one thing that the Europeans have on us Americans. This isn&#39;t an issue of morality, but of common sense.

[smack]

It&#39;s like I said in the cheerleading thread: We Americans make a great sport of dancing around our human sexuality taboos, including nudity. Its not without harm either I think. A little more relaxed and reasonable attitude and less taboo-worship would probably have a good effect on sexual health (including mental). Then again, I did used to teach sex ed, so I would think that.

[Garbarsardar]

I find Nike, addidassasas and other branded Cloathing offensive.

In fact, most of the images, degading the female body to the confines of a household tool or a fashion pincushion, do not involve naked depictions. The happy housewife, glamorous secretary, versatile and dynamic business women, are forced stereotypes without any offensiveness beyond their actual message...

[maxiumus_pooh]

Originally posted by Gelatinous Cube@May 17 2005, 11:28 PM
I think it takes a very sad and very special kind of person ot be offended by Nudity. This is one thing that the Europeans have on us Americans. This isn&#39;t an issue of morality, but of common sense.

It depends, Cube. Yes the europeans have common sense in this regard, but they also have a sense of propriety. Nudity on a beach is acceptable, but any European would be shocked if someone lifted up her shirt during church mass. We&#39;re having a problem of balance here in North America. Like our politics, our moral ethos is becoming more and more -stupidly- polarized, with common sense left with its throat cut in the gutter.