> > Because that's apples to bananas. Naked woman are sexually attractive to > normal people. and babies are not.(*) This obviously can not be the primary reason why we would not show naked women. The reason, as I understand it, is that the depicted persons easily lose their dignity when they are shown naked. That would be a different thing for an artistic, professional picture. For example, I can remember an advertisment of an afro-american, muscular man, naked, holding a white, naked baby. I have no problem with that, and it would make an excellent screen-shot, if not particularly useful to point out Gimp's features (which you should strive to accomplish). Having a poorly lit, amateur photograph showing a naked child that was presumably just having a bath is to my mind a different story. As I stated in a previous mail, If I had not mailed Dave, how long would the photo still have been around? Maybe his children will be thankful some day, when they understand what was going on, that not everyone has a photo of them with no clothes on. We need not delve further into those subjects (although I notice that you raise interesting points), because Dave has decided to take the photo off the web. I think that was a good move, and I'm done with that. > 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. I live outside the US, and the first thing coming to my mind when I saw the photo was the alleged criminal. I had no choice of what I wanted to come to my mind, so it was this, of which all newspapers here tell these days. I think that it is unreasonable to assume I am the only person who reacted this way. If I had known that Dave would forward my mail to the list, I would have thought of other reasons that people outside Europe could easily follow. Apparently, Dave could. > 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 :=> Yes, absolutely. And on a side note, I wish Dave the best for his son and everything, and hope he makes many pictures of him to keep, and to show him later. But he does not have to place those in the Gimp screen shots section, that's it. > 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. Again, I have to point out that I never intended to send the mail that Dave quoted to the list - I only thought that he would understand the issues I raised, and right I was. Best regards, Markus Triska.
