The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A debate we had to have > Comments

A debate we had to have : Comments

By Hetty Johnston, published 6/6/2008

As a society we simply can not legitimise the sexual portrayal of children in the name of art or anything else.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. All
TRTL You ask

Do you honestly regard sex as depraved? No. Where did I ever suggest all human sex as depraved? Something created by God only becomes corrupted and depraved when used for reasons other than intended. Paedophile and homosexuality are prime examples of this.

Sex outside of marriage is a major cause of the breakdown of the family unit. For many that means little. For the thousands of children growing up without natural mums or dads it means a lot. The Designer of sex gives the best and most sensible directions for its use.

You ask 'Are you okay with married couples taping their own sex lives and watching it? ' I have not thought about it enough to answer.

Your comparison of a nude of David and taking photos of nude 12 year old girls is dishonest at best. I have not seen the painting of King David but would no doubt find it distasteful. This however is a completely different issue to a 12 year old girl being photographed nude and then put on show for every pervert to stare at. It is simply child abuse and child porn. Would you along with CJ allow your 12 year old daughter to strip for this artist?
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 7:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

Just when I thought you couldn't surprise me you come out and admit that you have not seen the "painting" of David.

Well feast your eyes upon it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29

Yes, runner, it's not a painting. It's a sculpture. In full three-dimensional, lifelike adolescent nudity. Oh my!

It an even more more effete style, Donatello also did a sculpture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Donatello%29). And so did Verrocchio, albeit with slightly more clothes on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Verrocchio%29)

Obviously they were influenced by the Biblical lines which show where David's desires lay as perfectly and unambigiously expressed in Samuel I 20:30 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/20.html#30) and other sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan#Erotic_interpretation). Although I believe it is my duty to point out to you that you're not saved (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/rev/14.html#1)

I am perplexed by your consistent claim that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. If this is so there could you explain why there is so much of it in nature? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals). On another note, having been shown the empirical veracity of evolution (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg) do you still deny its validity? I've noticed that you avoid this in the past. Will you avoid it again?

I will also remind reader that as much as runner apparently opposes sex outside his narrow point of view, he's quite happy to encourage the physical abuse of children as long as it "is applied with love". Because the Bible told him so (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7099&page=0#108321). He ignores the "secular pervert science" that informs reasoning people that beating children is a bad thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment). I notice you ran away from that one last time as well!

Seriously, what does it take for you to get a bit of intellectual humility and acknowledge that you might not be right all the time?
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 8:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, to have "intellectual humility" presupposes that there is an actual intellect, but from my exposure to runner's babblings over quite some time now I'm not convinced that there is much of evidence of one.

However, he is frequently capable of providing priceless amusement, as with this gem:

<< I have not seen the painting of King David but would no doubt find it distasteful. >>

That should have been a line in "The Life of Brian" :D
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 11:15:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, I concluded that perhaps you regard sex as depraved because you stated that 'porn appeals to the depraved part of human nature.'

Porn, appeals to the sexual urges the vast majority of us share. So, I assumed that when you said it appeals to the depraved part of human nature, you were referring to sexuality as depraved.

As such, my questions were to probe what it is you consider depraved, hence the question of pornography within marriage. If a married, decent couple decided to photograph their own sex life and keep it to themselves, would it be sinful?

Porn is simply sex, as an image. Unlike other nude images, it is designed to elicit a sexual response.

I ask about the sculpture of David, because it is among the most famous artworks in history. Aside perhaps from the Mona Lisa or Sistine Chapel, I can't think of any other artwork that's more famous, and more highly regarded among otherwise conservative people, despite the fact that it is, indeed, nude.

(In fact, there was a Simpsons episode devoted to satirising this idea - when the sculpture of David was brought to town, a cohort of disapproving locals with slogans like 'Won't somebody Puh-leese think of the children!' descended upon them).

That such a finely sculpted form was so smoothly chiselled from a lump of stone without a mark, I think, is the ultimate expression of the human body. I don't think it was sexual.

As I see it runner, we all have bodies. We can regard them as shameful and descend down the path of veils and burkhas, or we can live and let live. I really don't see what is so bad about adult bodies that has people so very steamed up.

Nobody's being hurt.

It comes back to the sexualised and non-sexualised imagery, and whether nudity is assumed to be sexual - which is why perhaps you should consider the image of michaelangelo's David, and see whether you really do regard it as depraved. Then, perhaps discussing the intricacies of the issue is a little easier.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 11:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx: << I too am leaving OLO, directly AND indirectly because of this matter. I guess I will return in the fullness of time >>

Ginx - I'm truly sorry that this issue affects you so deeply, and that I've apparently offended you. I too have been quite "astonished" at your approach to the Henson controversy. It probably wouldn't hurt you to have a 'hiatus' in which you can reflect on why it is that you are unable to discuss this issue.

OK, you're probably in some kind of professional situation where privilege applies, but I don't accept that you can't attempt to explain in general and anonymous terms why it is you that you wish, apparently viscerally and mindlessly, to ban what I and many other intelligent, moral and reasonable people regard as legitimate art.

I can only guess as to what kinds of casework might lead an otherwise brilliantly discursive person to have such an apparently closed mind about this stuff, but I've no doubt it's serious sh!t.

Do come back whenever you like :)

P.S. [not addressed to Ginx in particular] Please note that this post was addressed to Ginx entirely in the second person. I meant no offence in posting to her otherwise - rather, I regard these as public discussions and therefore everybody else who reads this thread is involved.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 12 June 2008 12:06:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx, I'd missed the point where you said you are leaving.
Best wishes as you take a break.

These issues can be difficult. It's often amazing who we find ourselves agreeing with and who we disagree with (at other times all too predictable).

It's not helped that there are good people on both sides as well as some of a different disposition. I've been caught at times forgetting to differentiate between those with genuine concerns and those who will use any lever to control others lives or those with some serious issues.

We all at times get caught up in the intensity of the debate and forget what we know of someone we might be disagreeing with on a particular issue.

On a lighter note if you've found it tough imagine how tough it's been for Col and CJ finding themselves agreeing on an issue :) - I hope both survice the experience.

Best wishes and hope to see you back soon.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 12 June 2008 9:48:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy