On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 05:26 , Thylacine wrote:
> Not bad work Ixy... but is this a good idea?
> I mean, number 1, it's messing with Jim's work. He probly won't have a
> problem here, but still...
> But the big thing is.. if you're showing Jim's work off, what good is it
> to
> censor it? I mean... if they're prudes, they're unlikely to like most of
> his
> stuff, so why bother?
> And if they DO like it, well, they'll see the uncensored version sometime
> anyway (and a lot more besides, likely).
I don't think censorship is a good idea either. So many people have been
conditioned to react strongly to exposed naughty bits that it's both
ridiculous and horribly sad. In my view teaching children that sexuality
and even sensuality is shameful is emotional violence against children
with longer lasting effects than most other types of abuse. The fact is
that many people, and especially people who consider themselves religious,
have been conditioned to believe that genitals are a shameful thing and
that explicit art is inherently dirty.
When it is suppressed sexuality tends to come out in far more violent ways.
If you look at societies that suppress sexuality the most you'll see
that they are also the most violent. The US is a good example of that.
It's a society where, as was said earlier in this thread, extreme violence
is far more acceptable than simple sexuality or even nudity. Groups come
out to protest and use political pressure to push adult shops into the
very worst neighborhoods to 'keep them in their place'. The Attorney
General, John Ashcroft spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover the
aluminum nipple of a deco statue because it offended the religious
sensibilities he is trying to impose on the entire country (unsuccessfully
in Oregon). It is a country that in the past imposed puritanical ideas on
other countries like Japan after WWII. It is also a country which
projects the needs of the corporations it serves by military force and the
overthrow of democratic governments (the war over oil in Afganistan, the
failed overthrow in Venezuela, and the impending invasion of Iraq being
good examples). The expression of natural sexuality is considered a
serious a problem while killing civilians for the sake of cheap oil is no
big deal. That's really fucked up.
Above all children must be kept ignorant at all costs, which is seriously
fucking up the next generation. At least now with the internet and the
thankfully pitiful state of filtering software they can't be prevented
from exploring as easily as was once possible.
Jim's art is beautiful and his realistic genitals are a major part of that
beauty. Personally I see temporarily veiling the explicit nature of art
as a necessary evil if it might encourage people to be more open minded
about art. In the case of this very beautiful picture the spectre of
zoophilia might also be seen to be implied, which brings out an especially
virulent brand of wrath in many people.
If Jim objects I'll hard delete everything, burn my hard drive, etc. :)
That's also why why I suggested the other work that might be more
acceptable to people who are likely to be freaked by evil exposed nipples
and realistic genitalia.
Sorry about the rant.
> Oh well, just odd things niggling at me. Overall, I QUITE approve of
> showing
> off Jim's stuff in church ]=)
I very much approve also. I would never join any religious organization
whose members would object to his art or to sexuality in general, furry or
not. To do otherwise is to use doublethink for the sake of acceptance,
IMO.
--
Ixy - jaguar (at) bestweb (dot) net
"When animals do something that we like, we call it natural.
When they do something that we don't like, we call it animalistic."
-James Weinrich
Received on Tue Apr 30 2002 - 15:21:28 CDT