I would have labelled this Off Topic, but it's actually about
the list even though it's not about photography or cameras
per se any more.
Tom C wrote:
> 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society.
Gonna come back to that one...
> 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?
Mores have changed. Have _morals_ actually _declined_? Not
that I'm usually one to argue "value relativism", but it does
seem to me that in this particular area it is customs and
taboos that are at stake, not morality in any meaningfully
measurable sense. Does a shift in "decency" standards
necessarily correspond to an increase in theft, fraud,
murder, broken promises, usury, and so on, or is it really
more a change in fashion of sorts? Do people actually
behave in a less _moral_ manner today?
> 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family.
> Man/Woman/Child.
No, that's a relatively recent development. Civilization
was built on the _extended_ family.
> 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.
You may have a point there. I'm not convinced that you do,
but I can see that you might. It would mean that most people
are not wired the way I am, but I guess I should not find
that possibility surprising.
> 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?
"Bombard"??? Okay, admittedly I have not looked at very
many of the PAW images and I'm a couple months behind on
the PUG, but -- and this is an actual question, not a
rhetorical one -- is this forum actually being _bombarded_
with sexual images? Or is it just a couple of them this
week that's suddenly being interpreted as a bombardment?
*IF* the answer is that it's just this week, then the next
question obviously becomes, does this mean that no sexual
imagery ever is the only acceptable (to you) guideline?
Or is the perception that you are being "bombarded" here
a result of the bombardment with sexual imagery in the
world at large more than here, so that any inkling here,
however usual or unusual for here, is "oh no, not more of
this!" where the rest of "this" is on the telly and
billboards and such?
> As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or
> disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly
> be called disparaging.
Distort ... corrupt ... disrepect ... Re-examine? Question?
Re-interpret? Show another side of? Doesn't "disrespect"
imply _intent_, and doesn't "corrupt" depend on a particular
point of view? I *do* see where you're coming from on that
one -- there are things you could do to holy symbols or
depictions of my saviour which would similarly upset me,
to be honest (though this one does not) -- but I think you're
using language that polarizes the debate rather than fostering
communication on the points you're trying to get across.
Bob Blakely wrote:
< Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now
< reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is
< suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks
< censorship in making requests?
I'd say the request is in a grey area with regards to
concepts and definitions of censorship. No, this is
clearly not an example of the _legal_, or strict,
definition of censorship, but it shares much in common
with actual censorship. I'm _not_ going to claim that
it's morally equivalent, because, as I said, it's in a
grey area, but I do not think it is unreasonable for
people to have an initial emotional reaction the same
as they would react to a call for censorship.
You see, it's advocacy of a community standard which
would impose censure on certain things; no formal
censor, since messages are not manually approved by
a moderator before posting, but it's an exhortation
for others to raise their voices in support of this
"no sexual bombardment" idea and _make_sexual_images_unwelcome_.
The result would be "self-censorship" not from an
innate sense of "I shouldn't do that", but from _fear_
of community disapproval, complaint, argument ...
whatever force the would-be-censors can bring to
bear in this medium ... the fear of becoming
"outcast".
It's a tricky thing. The request is, in some senses,
a reasonable one: "I don't want to see these things
and I would prefer a forum where they are not present".
But asking others to make them unwelcome means changing
the environment for others in a way that is, to them,
for the worse. And let's face it, it's really hard
to make such a request without the folks it's aimed
at feeling like it's an attempt to restraint them at
best, or to disparage them (as morally unclean) at
worst. It's going to _feel_ like censorship. So, it's
a delicate matter.
When Bob W wrote:
/ please do not post this kind of thing to the list again, Collin. I'm
/ trying to keep medieval prejudice and ignorance out of my house.
did you see that as being entirely facetious? 'Cause
while I can't tell which way Bob W meant it, I do know
people who make essentially the same statement in
complete and utter seriousness, usually with respect
to what they don't want their children exposed to.
They're not just being snarky. Can you see how it's
actually just as reasonable a request when viewed
objectively? And just as sticky for the same reasons?
At the same time, I would like to ask that those of
us who perceive such requests as censorshop try to
refrain from jumping the gun on accusations of
actual censorship, and to try to understand where
the request is coming from, so that we might find
solutions instead of just girding our loins for a
fight. "Censorship" is a pretty emotionally charged
word these days, so even when it's partially
applicable, saying it tends to make the other side
get all defensive. Yeah, we need to point out
the censorial aspects, but try to do so gently so
that others can see why you say it rather than
just making them go, "No I'm not!"
Fortunately, I do see room for a compromise here,
though I'm not certain everyone will see it as a
compromise. Actually, it's pretty close to the
status quo, which I suppose makes me a conservative...
Cotty had written:
<> 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.
Right, the images are not embedded in the list
messages, merely pointed to. As long as suitably
useful guidance is provided so that each viewer
can reasonably choose whether to look, and the language
of that guidance is itself neither offensive nor
self-oppressive (that is, we can offer enough
information in value-neutral phrasing so as to
neither wind up having to effectively say, "my
pictures are dirty," nor veer wildly into "Political
Correctness" in either direction), then the mere
_existance_ of such works and mention of their
existance _ought_ give no offense.
Of course, it might help if there were enough non-touchy
images being posted that the easily-offended (or rather,
the offended-by-sexuality) don't feel left out. But
has _that_ been a problem so far?
The thing is, because this is no change -- or a
wee change perhaps -- from current practice, it
doesn't sound very compromise-y, I know. My suggesting
it is really a suggestion that the status quo already
_is_ a reasonable compromise. I think. IMHO. Etc.
I just hope something I've said here is actually useful.
-- Glenn
