I might also add that the disclaimor regarding the content of an image/movie/lyrics, etc., no matter how well intentioned, is the loophole that is used by entertainment industries to present material that might otherwise be considered totally objectionable.

There is a great dichotomy in society and even individuals today regarding what we view as proper behavior for ourselves and others vs. what we view as acceptable to watch or look at.

If rape is wrong, why depict it in popular entertainment for young people to view. If drug use is wrong, why depict it in popular entertainment for young people to view?

There's the saying 'we are what we eat'. That can also be applied in a more intellectual sense. Our behavior and mores can be affected by what we consume and process with our eyes, ears and brains.

Not meaning to be on the soapbox here... heading back down.

Tom C.





From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:47:48 +0100


On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered:

>1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society.
>2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is
>OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards
>change?
>3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of
>nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today.
>4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family.
>Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down,
>families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today
>in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual
>images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many,
>if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and
>desires.
>5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't
>bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?


I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if
you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture
in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the
photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view
the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have
written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are
suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster
proceeded was fair and correct IMO.

With great respect,




Cheers, Cotty


___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________






Reply via email to