On Tuesday 13 January 2004 06:16 pm, Delirium
wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
> In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it
legitimate
> because I don't consider nudity
offensive. (I have previously given
> the
> example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for
> children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at
> their
own
unclothed
body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous.
(And a sad
reflection on the influence of religious fundamentalists on
societies the
world over.)
Ah, but should we add some graphic photographs to [[anus]], [[feces]],
and a variety of other subjects people perhaps wouldn't want to see
images of? After all, unless you're offended by your own bowel
movements, you can't possibly find images of feces offensive, right?
That is correct. I see my feces nearly every day, and recognise that
defecation is a normal and natural act. I am not in the least bit
offended by
the sight of feces. People study feces of animals to infer what they
ate,
etc. I don't find these people to be morally reprehensible characters
because
they are interested in feces. Similarly for anuses.
How many anuses do *you* see per day? I don't see any, myself. Not
even my own. So what's so great about a picture of an anus? Will it
help you recognize one if you see it in the wild? :)
It seems like a diagram, rather than a picture, would be much more
informative, which is obviously the point. And if we offend fewer
people, so much the better.
Peter