I belong to a religion where sex is worship, God drinks beer with you, etc.
I'm not going to go out of my way to show my kids an issue of Playboy, but
if my kids find them, we'll talk about sexuality, sensuality, etc. I'm not
going to expose them to it deliberately, but I'm not going to say that it's
a bad thing either. I was exposed to sex rather early, and while it did
cause me a few problems (being exposed to it is one thing, trying it out
when you're 6-7 years old with someone the same age/gender or both as you is
quite another), I am still a virgin (no penetration happened). I was exposed
to a lot of things when I was young: violence, hate, sex, etc. None of it
was deliberate, but I had to work around things. I'm still a violent person
who's desperately trying not to be, and it has nothing to do with sexual
repression. I still view sex as a form of worship. I can't think of anything
more beautiful, satisfying, or practical as a form of worship. Why is it
that the organized religions can't seem to figure this out? I can never
understand this? In the story of Adam and Eve, how is it that their nudeness
was shameful? THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE THERE! Just them and God, and God didn't
care, otherwise he'd've given them clothes in the first place! THAT's why
sex is considered evil and a sin. Because to be nude is shameful. News
flash! You're nude when you take a bath or shower, you're nude when you're
born! Was nudity an issue when you're 3 hours old? Does it make a
difference? Hell no! And people ask me why I don't follow an organized
religion. Inconsistencies, contradictions, even with God it seems. In the
Old Testament, he punished people left and right. In the new, he's a
forgiving, loving god. Now, when "sexual deviancy" (I'm talking pedophilia,
necrophilia, etc) is much higher than it was in Sodom and Gamora, he does
nothing. These are my own beliefs, though. If they cause you to question,
fine. If not, fine. If they cause you to flame, take it off-list, my email's
in the header. I like what I believe in, which is rather common sense
anyway.
Live to love, love to live. I apologize for the rant, but it seems that the
flood-gates have opened. Censorship is a controversial issue, and I'm of the
firm opinion of "If you don't like it, stop looking."
SeaWolvn1
-----------------------------
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.
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.
Received on Tue Apr 30 2002 - 23:10:12 CDT