On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:53:18AM +0000, Markus Triska <triska@xxxxxx> wrote:
> we would not show a naked woman in a Gimp advertisement, even if it is
> perfectly natural. So why would you show a naked baby?
Because that's apples to bananas. Naked woman are sexually attractive to
normal people. and babies are not.(*)
Hinting that babies are objects of sexual desire is becoming more and
more commonplace nowadays, in certain cultures at least (mostly, but not
limited to, the us). I do not believe that this is a good direction.
In other words, people who equate babies (or children) with sexually
desirable objects automatically acknowledge that babies _are_ valid sexual
objects. They are not, and harassing others to think that way is not,
IMnsHO, a direction we should take.
I think this is what Sven wanted to hint at with his comment (that such
people were sick). It is not the right thing to do to make yourself a
slave of this "babies are sexually attractive" thinking, which is, as you
hopefully agree, not normal. If you don't, then photos of babies are just
that, and should evoke feelings of joy, especially for the parents :=>
I voiced my opinion on this mainly to not leave Dave in a kind of limbo,
as if he did something wrong. What he did was not wrong at all.
(*) pedosexuality is still a mental illness, as defined by most medical
associations. (**)
(**) homosexuality was a mental illness back in the seventies, and the
attempts by doctors to get pedosexuality off the list of mental illnesses
have increased a lot recently, so I do not know what the future brings,
maybe that proves me wrong....
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
