Rushn02 wrote:

gopherus wrote:

belindar wrote:

SwanSong wrote:

If that's really the picture she's a beautiful lady with a lovely smile. Nothing offensive about it.

After saying that, it's still amazing to me how much attention the words sex and pornographic get.

Everyone, please, get your head out of your Reproductive Chakra.

In Hinduism and in some related Asian cultures, a chakra is thought to be a nexus of metaphysical and/or biophysical energy residing in the human body. The New Age movement, and to some degree the distinctly different New Thought movement, have also adopted and elaborated on this belief.


Just because this not offensive to you, does not mean it is not upsetting to others. I admit when I first saw this, I was only shocked because there is no way in hell that I would ever let a photographer and others be present for a shoot like that. Oh, course I close my eyes when I pass by the mirror to get into the shower.

The newspaper was delivered to me in a elementary school setting. This is too adult for them, nor would I ever want to presume that other parents should be okay with it, so I quickly got it out of the area where children would come across it. I respect that parents have the right to demand from their community certain standards of decency. My right to throw a punch ends at another's face. Parents have the right and responsibility to raise their children with the standards they value and to expect to have fair warning of the material that may be entering their homes that might cause concern. If the Herald continues to cross this line, it may end up like other newspapers across the nation with a failing business. I remember as a child my first accidental viewing of a picture not unlike this. It does change how you see the world.


Perhaps parents do have a right to raise their child as they see fit. However, if they raise their child to believe that an image such as this, or their own nude body, is wrong then they are doing a disservice to their children. It sounds as if this may have been the case with you. I would have absolutely no problem with my 5 year old seeing a photo like this. This is an example of what people look like. Do you think it is appropriate to hide all images from all children and to only let their parents decide what they see. Perhaps we should blindfold our children prior to sending them to school. I think that your protection of children is simply the placement on them of your standards. No need to feel guilty, this is what everyone does, but you should understand that you probably expose children to things that would offend their parents every day. My child has been taught the pledge of allegiance, with under God in it, at the young age of 5. I call this indoctrination and it offends me greatly. My child is also offered snacks on occasion that are meat. Although his teacher knows not to give them to him, and he doesn't want them, he is surrounded by it anyway. Heck, meat is sometimes part of the lesson plan which he tends to think is pretty stupid. I agree. The thing is that this is just the beginning of him being exposed to things that I don't want him to be exposed to because he may be to young to understand. However, it is what we do as a society. I deal with it, he will learn to deal with it, and you and other parents should do likewise.


Gopherus,
I have a random quick question for you, and I'm seriously not trying to cause a fight, I'm not aquainted with any atheists (that I'm aware). Does your family celebrate Christmas or any part of the December holidays? Just curious, I know you won't take offense to the question.


We do celebrate Christmas. Like many things it has become part of the secular tradition of this country (and others). You know what, we even have a nativity scene (we couldn't afford the Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer Villiage). Our nativity is somewhat traditional except we use a white marry and black baby Jesus. Our son likes to play with it (as do other neighbor kids, I don't think their parents let them play with theirs) and use 2 baby Jesuses. To many this will probably seem like somewhat of a contradiction (atheist celebrating Christamas and including the Jesus story as well as Santa), but we like stories. The difference in our house is that the nativity story is a story, it didn't happen. It is tough to get a small child to understand that this story is different than others not because it is true but because some people believe it is true. That is where the pledge gets weird. Under God is more of a statement of fact than a story. The problem is that there may be no God and, even if there is, we may not be under him in either his eyes or our actions.
I'm sure that this only begins to answer your question, so let me know if I can flesh it out any for you.

O.K., Woody, I'll give you a hint.  The first number is somewhere between two and four.

belindar wrote:

SwanSong wrote:

If that's really the picture she's a beautiful lady with a lovely smile. Nothing offensive about it.

After saying that, it's still amazing to me how much attention the words sex and pornographic get.

Everyone, please, get your head out of your Reproductive Chakra.

In Hinduism and in some related Asian cultures, a chakra is thought to be a nexus of metaphysical and/or biophysical energy residing in the human body. The New Age movement, and to some degree the distinctly different New Thought movement, have also adopted and elaborated on this belief.


Just because this not offensive to you, does not mean it is not upsetting to others. I admit when I first saw this, I was only shocked because there is no way in hell that I would ever let a photographer and others be present for a shoot like that. Oh, course I close my eyes when I pass by the mirror to get into the shower.

The newspaper was delivered to me in a elementary school setting. This is too adult for them, nor would I ever want to presume that other parents should be okay with it, so I quickly got it out of the area where children would come across it. I respect that parents have the right to demand from their community certain standards of decency. My right to throw a punch ends at another's face. Parents have the right and reresponsibilityo raise their children with the standards they value and to expect to have fair warning of the material that may be entering their homes that might cause concern. If the Herald continues to cross this line, it may end up like other newspapers across the nation with a failing business. I remember as a child my first accidental viewing of a picture not unlike this. It does change how you see the world.


It only does if there is a dirty stigma attached to nudity and the human form. The stigma is what is sick and warped.

dave wrote:

belindar wrote:

SwanSong wrote:

If that's really the picture she's a beautiful lady with a lovely smile. Nothing offensive about it.

After saying that, it's still amazing to me how much attention the words sex and pornographic get.

Everyone, please, get your head out of your Reproductive Chakra.

In Hinduism and in some related Asian cultures, a chakra is thought to be a nexus of metaphysical and/or biophysical energy residing in the human body. The New Age movement, and to some degree the distinctly different New Thought movement, have also adopted and elaborated on this belief.


Just because this not offensive to you, does not mean it is not upsetting to others. I admit when I first saw this, I was only shocked because there is no way in hell that I would ever let a photographer and others be present for a shoot like that. Oh, course I close my eyes when I pass by the mirror to get into the shower.

The newspaper was delivered to me in a elementary school setting. This is too adult for them, nor would I ever want to presume that other parents should be okay with it, so I quickly got it out of the area where children would come across it. I respect that parents have the right to demand from their community certain standards of decency. My right to throw a punch ends at another's face. Parents have the right and reresponsibilityo raise their children with the standards they value and to expect to have fair warning of the material that may be entering their homes that might cause concern. If the Herald continues to cross this line, it may end up like other newspapers across the nation with a failing business. I remember as a child my first accidental viewing of a picture not unlike this. It does change how you see the world.


It only does if there is a dirty stigma attached to nudity and the human form. The stigma is what is sick and warped.
That stigma must have some validity, otherwise companies would not resort to "the look" to advertise. It stimulates on some level and produces exactly what those advertising want... a second look and an association with their product. You can't be sexy without dove soap you know. That my friend is exploitation...which in turn makes a profit and isn't that what it is all about anyhow? BTW I have see worse (or better???) in National Geographics and they were not advertising anything, nor did it cause me to leer and drool.

Mariner wrote:

dave wrote:

belindar wrote:

SwanSong wrote:

If that's really the picture she's a beautiful lady with a lovely smile. Nothing offensive about it.

After saying that, it's still amazing to me how much attention the words sex and pornographic get.

Everyone, please, get your head out of your Reproductive Chakra.

In Hinduism and in some related Asian cultures, a chakra is thought to be a nexus of metaphysical and/or biophysical energy residing in the human body. The New Age movement, and to some degree the distinctly different New Thought movement, have also adopted and elaborated on this belief.


Just because this not offensive to you, does not mean it is not upsetting to others. I admit when I first saw this, I was only shocked because there is no way in hell that I would ever let a photographer and others be present for a shoot like that. Oh, course I close my eyes when I pass by the mirror to get into the shower.

The newspaper was delivered to me in a elementary school setting. This is too adult for them, nor would I ever want to presume that other parents should be okay with it, so I quickly got it out of the area where children would come across it. I respect that parents have the right to demand from their community certain standards of decency. My right to throw a punch ends at another's face. Parents have the right and reresponsibilityo raise their children with the standards they value and to expect to have fair warning of the material that may be entering their homes that might cause concern. If the Herald continues to cross this line, it may end up like other newspapers across the nation with a failing business. I remember as a child my first accidental viewing of a picture not unlike this. It does change how you see the world.


It only does if there is a dirty stigma attached to nudity and the human form. The stigma is what is sick and warped.
That stigma must have some validity, otherwise companies would not resort to "the look" to advertise. It stimulates on some level and produces exactly what those advertising want... a second look and an association with their product. You can't be sexy without dove soap you know. That my friend is exploitation...which in turn makes a profit and isn't that what it is all about anyhow? BTW I have see worse (or better???) in National Geographics and they were not advertising anything, nor did it cause me to leer and drool.


The ad was not sexy in any way shape or form.

Is it suppose to be sexy? Does it have to be sexy in the context of a man's view what 'sexy' is?

I like their theme "Pro-age" Whoever thought this campaign up is a total genius. Look how everybody's talking!

http://www.doveproage.com/home.asp