Forums | MacLife

I didnt see religion in that article, did you?

No I don't, but these are conservative Christians who are complaining about it, I can almost guaranty you that.

I'm conservative and Christian.  And I have no problem with nudity whatsoever. 

Guess I ruin your whole hypothesis.  Sorry.

I'm a Christian too, but I'd have to agree that it was mostl likely Christians who were complaining about the nudity. It happens all the time, and they are the most vocal group against nudity (heaven know why, seeing as how it's in the Bible quite often, and never condemned). I think it's quite a reasonable assumption that it was Christians who were complaining.

Oh, and KingFred...
Don't post that filth here.

Ooops... Sorry. Is this better?

During my senior year of high school I volunteered a couple days a month as an escort.

Damn, where were girls like this when I was in high school?

During my senior year of high school I volunteered a couple days a month as an escort.

Damn, where were girls like this when I was in high school?

Didn't you see Dogma?  Hang around Planned Parenthood - great place to find smurf chicks!

I got this one off the wires:

PILOT POINT, Texas (AP) -- People here aren't upset about what's
inside a local art gallery. It's what's painted outside: a mural of a nude Eve.

Police gave gallery owner Wes Miller until Aug. 20 to change the wall mural, saying it violated state law against distributing "harmful material" to a minor. Otherwise, Miller will face criminal charges.

Miller said he'll go along with the change, though he doesn't see anything wrong with the picture, which depicts a reclining Eve, her pelvic region obscured in shadow, as a large hand points to the forbidden apple.

"I think of it as art on an art gallery wall," said Miller who has owned Farmers and Merchants Art Gallery for 28 years in this North Texas town.

But, he told the Denton Record-Chronicle in Friday's editions, "I don't feel it's my job to jeopardize my financial stability for the constitutional rights of the citizens of Pilot Point."

Miller said he and artist Justine Wollaston have discussed how to change the mural. One idea was a stripe across the breasts with the word "CENSORED."

No charges have been filed yet. "We've just had some complaints," Sgt. James Edland said.

City Council member Jay Melugin called the mural disgusting.

"I just don't like my children seeing it," he said.

I don't suppose those folks complain about the bullet-riddled corpses of Saddam's sons being shown on national TV in the middle of the daytime?

Looks like Texas needs another bitchslapping.

They don't understand the difference between ART and morality.

I wonder how many bare-breasted paintings are hanging in Churches?

If it's art, there is no problem. Go into any public museum or library and you will see nude paintings.

This is just a simple case of someone being an idiot.

"Now, explain why YOU feel the mere sight of breasts is so disgusting that it will corrupt children and you might have a point to discuss."

That comment pretty much summed up all the retarded replies I received. Did none of you get the point? Or did you purposely avoid it? My whole point was the same thing Styer says... It's about parental rights, and many of them not wanting small children to see that.

"Looks like Texas needs another bitchslapping."

Wanna come try instead of doing all that mouthing?

It happens all the time, and they are the most vocal group against nudity (heaven know why, seeing as how it's in the Bible quite often, and never condemned). I think it's quite a reasonable assumption that it was Christians who were complaining.

Yeah, dang it! Cover up them bible,.. er,.. boobies!

It occurs to me that if people didn't make such a gosh-darned big deal about it, it probably would cease to be a gosh-darned big deal. No?

That comment pretty much summed up all the retarded replies I received. Did none of you get the point? Or did you purposely avoid it? My whole point was the same thing Styer says... It's about parental rights, and many of them not wanting small children to see that.

You're a weird guy. About half the time I think you're right on the money with your opinions, and other half I think you're a complete idiot. I will concede that you don't follow anyone's party line, and I respect that.

I really don't want to get into the porn vs. art discussion, but I do think your point doesn't hold up. The issue is appropriate public display and the rights of parents. Any resolution to this is going to be subjective, but I do think that this is well within the arbitrary line for several reasons. Parents have no right to censor society from anything they might consider harmful to their kids just as society has no right to publicly (and by that I mean outdoors) display patently offensive images.

The real question is where that line should be drawn. In this case, we are not talking about sexual intent. The image is clearly not meant to be sexually stimulating. It's a representation of a Bible story, one that clearly references the nakedness of the people involved.

Also, we are not talking about genitalia. We are talking about breasts, which are titillating to some in our society. Still, the purpose of female breasts is to nuture children. You can't say that the display of breasts is sexual in all cases. This one, in my opinion, does not qualify as titillating.

Your argument that parents have an unqualified right to have their children protected by law from anything that might be offensive to them personally doesn't wash. There's a whole range of things that people find offensive -- should we require all women to cover their heads because we have Muslims in our society that might be offended?

There's a place between having porn splashed all over the place in public and banning everything that might offend. It's a tricky subject that I'm not going to offer an answer to here. You think this falls to one side of the line, I think it falls on the other.

My point, such as it is, is not to define that line but to point out that your reasoning is flawed. Banning any image that might offend someone is not feasible or constitutional, not is it compatible with a free society.

For me, I'm less concerned with small town five year olds seeing breasts on Biblical art than I am with urban five year olds seeing their fathers gunned down in the street. That's a whole lot more likely to have a damaging impact on the psyche of a child.

I think it's a great work of art. I like it. I wonder if there is a copy or poster or something of it I can get ahold of.

Next thing, they'll try to ban anything from the masters.

I'm still trying to figure out why it's ok to have a gallery devoted to penises but it's not ok to have a masterful work depicting a female human form.

theres an art gallery dedicated to penises?
where is that?

Damn, these people should move to Singapore where porn is practically outlawed. So is chewing gum. It's really clean there.

Could some of the anti-boobs please say why looking upon the nipple will damage kids? something besides repeating, "it's parents' rights! It's parents' right!" please?

Has there been some study showing that guys that saw breasts as kids become sex maniacs?

apparently its against the law, imagine that