Stargate and Nudity

[ykickamoocow]

This civilised arguement is completely pointless anyway as countries in Western Europe and Northern Europe have extremely high levels of standard of livings (considerably higher than the USA) and they are far more accepting of nudity on television. Using the HDI (Human Development Index) the 10 most civilised countries in the world are

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

So if we are going to used civilised as the benchmark for nudity on television then nudity should be allowed as most of thse 10 countries all have reasonably relaxed laws towards nudity.

[LostCityGuardian]

This civilised arguement is completely pointless anyway as countries in Western Europe and Northern Europe have extremely high levels of standard of livings (considerably higher than the USA) and they are far more accepting of nudity on television. Using the HDI (Human Development Index) the 10 most civilised countries in the world are

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

So if we are going to used civilised as the benchmark for nudity on television then nudity should be allowed as most of thse 10 countries all have reasonably relaxed laws towards nudity.

Good stuff! You didn't rely on GDP per capita as a measure of civility/living standards, which would have been the obvious (and wrong) choice.

[Coco Pops]

This civilised arguement is completely pointless anyway as countries in Western Europe and Northern Europe have extremely high levels of standard of livings (considerably higher than the USA) and they are far more accepting of nudity on television. Using the HDI (Human Development Index) the 10 most civilised countries in the world are

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

So if we are going to used civilised as the benchmark for nudity on television then nudity should be allowed as most of thse 10 countries all have reasonably relaxed laws towards nudity.

I don't know that we are that tolerent in Australia regards nudity on TV.

To see explicit nudity you have to either have Pay TV or watch SBS which is a special channel catering to weird and wacky shows, and ethnic people. They screen a lot of european and italian movies and stuff from other countries which is way more explicit then movies normally seen on FTA (free to air) TV here...

Plus the relgious have gained entry into parliament here because certain churches have helped campaign candidates in the last federal election and they're not very tolerant people. They're quite bigoted.

[ykickamoocow]

I don't know that we are that tolerent in Australia regards nudity on TV.

To see explicit nudity you have to either have Pay TV or watch SBS which is a special channel catering to weird and wacky shows, and ethnic people. They screen a lot of european and italian movies and stuff from other countries which is way more explicit then movies normally seen on FTA (free to air) TV here...

Plus the relgious have gained entry into parliament here because certain churches have helped campaign candidates in the last federal election and they're not very tolerant people. They're quite bigoted.

I did say most though i think Australia is ok in regards to nudity as SBS have to follow the same regulations as all the other Free to Air channels.

In Australia i have seen nudity at &;30pm (a travel show visited a nude beach) and from 8:30pm regular nudity is allowed (breasts, buttocks) and by 9:30pm simulated sex scenes are allowed to be shown. Also they occasionally show nudity on the news which airs at around 6:00pm.

[Coco Pops]

Yeah things are pretty good here in Australia....

But this is a fascinating topic. I bring in the big question. I'm wheeling
it in on a trolley it's so big

What constitutes "Art" or "Porn"


A controversial photographer has had his gallery exhibit yanked
and yet another controversay over art vs porn.

Frankly seeing this guy on TV he looks old, and grubby.

And what the hell were the parents / gaurdians of these kids thinking
letting them do this? Bit much.. Grubby little man...

See here
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...006301,00.html

[LostCityGuardian]

Yeah things are pretty good here in Australia....

But this is a fascinating topic. I bring in the big question. I'm wheeling
it in on a trolley it's so big

What constitutes "Art" or "Porn"


A controversial photographer has had his gallery exhibit yanked
and yet another controversay over art vs porn.

Frankly seeing this guy on TV he looks old, and grubby.

And what the hell were the parents / gaurdians of these kids thinking
letting them do this? Bit much.. Grubby little man...

See here
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...006301,00.html

Certainly after having read the article it would look to be kiddie porn rather than art. That's sick ****.

[Coco Pops]

Certainly after having read the article it would look to be kiddie porn rather than art. That's sick ****.

Some of the photos int he exhibit are over 10 years old so it has made this a kind of grey issue .

But it's not what I would call art. Why couldn't he find adult women to photograph?

[Daedalus-304]

Yeah things are pretty good here in Australia....

But this is a fascinating topic. I bring in the big question. I'm wheeling
it in on a trolley it's so big

What constitutes "Art" or "Porn"


A controversial photographer has had his gallery exhibit yanked
and yet another controversay over art vs porn.

Frankly seeing this guy on TV he looks old, and grubby.

And what the hell were the parents / gaurdians of these kids thinking
letting them do this? Bit much.. Grubby little man...

See here
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...006301,00.html

I can't believe anyone would do something like that. I don't know about the rest of the world, but doing something like that to kids is very, very illegal in the US. People get jailed not only for making or distributing it, but for having it at all.

[LostCityGuardian]

But it's not what I would call art. Why couldn't he find adult women to photograph?

Frankly, for a start the kids are too young provide informed consent, and this is an area where a parent shouldn't be able to provide consent for them. They must have been some really crazy parents.

[rlr149]

maybe we should form an 'angry mob', pitchforks, flaming torchs, the whole shebang!!!

Hang on, I meant the other thing,
"waiting till the evidence is in" or at least getting the whole story.

[Pandora's_Box]

Yeah things are pretty good here in Australia....

But this is a fascinating topic. I bring in the big question. I'm wheeling
it in on a trolley it's so big

What constitutes "Art" or "Porn"


A controversial photographer has had his gallery exhibit yanked
and yet another controversay over art vs porn.

Frankly seeing this guy on TV he looks old, and grubby.

And what the hell were the parents / gaurdians of these kids thinking
letting them do this? Bit much.. Grubby little man...

See here
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...006301,00.html

Certainly after having read the article it would look to be kiddie porn rather than art. That's sick ****.

Not having seen the images, I don't know exactly what to say with regards to the posing the photographer demanded - whether or not he sexualized these children.

If he didn't, then there really is no way you can call it porn or pornography. Porn is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal. I doubt there was anything explicit in those photographs. If there had been, there's no way they would have been picked up by any art gallery. The worst you can say is that it may be considered erotica. And that's only for the sick people that get turned on by child nudity.

In the end what it is, is a display of nude children. Is it wrong? I guess that depends on your views of nudity, propriety, and the morality of the thing.

I think it's important to note that the youngest child was no younger than 12. And while that is by no means an adult, usually by 12 children are old enough and assertive enough to tell someone when a situation is making them uncomfortable and they don't want to do it. You couldn't get my 11 year old sister to do something she doesn't want to do, that's for sure.

If he did sexualize them, then I am wholly, 100% against the very idea. Children have no place in, and shouldn't be forced to participate in an adult world. Let them enjoy what they have of their innocence without subjugating them to the more mature, some may say more vulgar, aspects of the adult world. They'll have plenty of time for that later.

[Coco Pops]

Not having seen the images, I don't know exactly what to say with regards to the posing the photographer demanded - whether or not he sexualized these children.

If he didn't, then there really is no way you can call it porn or pornography. Porn is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal. I doubt there was anything explicit in those photographs. If there had been, there's no way they would have been picked up by any art gallery. The worst you can say is that it may be considered erotica. And that's only for the sick people that get turned on by child nudity.

In the end what it is, is a display of nude children. Is it wrong? I guess that depends on your views of nudity, propriety, and the morality of the thing.

I think it's important to note that the youngest child was no younger than 12. And while that is by no means an adult, usually by 12 children are old enough and assertive enough to tell someone when a situation is making them uncomfortable and they don't want to do it. You couldn't get my 11 year old sister to do something she doesn't want to do, that's for sure.

If he did sexualize them, then I am wholly, 100% against the very idea. Children have no place in, and shouldn't be forced to participate in an adult world. Let them enjoy what they have of their innocence without subjugating them to the more mature, some may say more vulgar, aspects of the adult world. They'll have plenty of time for that later.

Here you go some stuff on Google Images of Bill Henson's work
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

[Pandora's_Box]

Here you go some stuff on Google Images of Bill Henson's work
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

I've seen some of his other work and he has some truly great stuff.

But I can't judge one exhibit based on his other photographs.

The other exhibit I can think of that some people may use to demonstrate his "obsession" with nudity would be his "Nocturnal" series. But even those subjects weren't sexualized. Unless, of course, you consider the simple act of being nude a sexual act. And not even all the subjects were nude anyway.

[aretood2]

This civilised arguement is completely pointless anyway as countries in Western Europe and Northern Europe have extremely high levels of standard of livings (considerably higher than the USA) and they are far more accepting of nudity on television. Using the HDI (Human Development Index) the 10 most civilised countries in the world are

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

So if we are going to used civilised as the benchmark for nudity on television then nudity should be allowed as most of thse 10 countries all have reasonably relaxed laws towards nudity.

All you proved that the most civilized are starting to move backwards and the trend is going to the less civilized as well.This and rising Child based crime, school shootings, sex based crimes, murders, drug based crimes, and general mistrust of authority in nations like the US point to a degrading society that is becoming morally confused.

i've certainly been watching it longer, i saw the first episode, on its first airing(with the nudity), does that make my opinion more valid...... by your rational.......yes

But you are not truly offended because it you were, you would no longer be watching. You are now reducing those that are offended to the role of children witch adds on to the level of offensive nature that I am receiving. I started watching it on Sci Fi, with no nudity at all. If the show wishes to change to a porn channel to show all the nudity it wants, then I have nothing against it. But it changed to Sci Fi with no nudity. How many times must I repeat my point before you learn that I well be offended were you would just be annoyed by something you consider trivial and not offensive. You can't just simply start making up things to be offended by in order to reduce those that are honestly offended to the role of winning children. That is disrespectful and I actually expected better from you. But I guess that you can only respect things if they meat your criteria for rational belief, meaning that anything based on religions, like Monotheism, is irrational and unworthy of respect.

This ignorance is generally accepted by your side. Just cuase someone feels that the "Enlightened" way of things are better than those that suscribe to the stupid holy books that were written by "Insane" morons who believe in a God or gods in some sort. This is the message that I get from the general attitude of some on these forums. This message continues and is made even more loud by even considering pictures of naked children to be OK as long as they are not porn. What else is next? Where is the line drawn? When will the beliefs of the religious not be considered bigotry by the "Enlightened"? Just cause we subscribe to different morals that are more conservative than yours, does that mean us to be lesser? Reduced to the role of children and bigots? Do you even know how it is to be a minority in this nation of mine? Do you truly understand bigotry? The black population feels oppressed in this nation, well I believe that they are lucky when compared to mine. At least they are automatically recognized as Americans. It is becoming a possibility that laws will be passed where I could be stopped by the police just to have to prove my citizenship, why? Cause I am not White nor black. I can guarantee that if such a thing happens then only those of my "Race" well be stopped for that purpose, that is true bigotry. Even worse is being asked if I am Legally or Illegally here when I was in the 4th Grade!!! I was asked by a class mate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that is true bigotry. Little Muslim girls not being allowed to were there traditional head garments at schools like the so called 10th Most "Civilized" nation in the world,France. I guess the Muslims are being Bigots by that reasoning.

I draw the line at children. I will not tolerate that at all. I draw the line at being even remotely called a bigot, Directly or Indirectly. I also draw the line at misusing the word Bigot. There are just somethings in this brave new world that are just beyond offensive to down right ignorant and abusive.

[Daedalus-304]

If he didn't, then there really is no way you can call it porn or pornography. Porn is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal.

I guess people have different views on what pornography is. For many people any nudity at all, is viewed to create sexual arousal and therefore porn.

I doubt there was anything explicit in those photographs. If there had been, there's no way they would have been picked up by any art gallery. The worst you can say is that it may be considered erotica. And that's only for the sick people that get turned on by child nudity.

That is the main problem with this kind of stuff, is that you have these sick people out there, and this kind of stuff adds fuel to the flame for them.