Well, you know, unless you support the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa (as far as I can tell, despite Benedict’s wishy washy answer 7 years ago, the official doctrine remains the same), or abortions to save the mother’s life (sorry for shit link; the original story went dead). . .
I mean, I’m glad that the modern Church forgave Galileo and all that (well, kinda), but let’s not pretend it’s terribly progressive, except as compared to more virulent strains of modern Christianity.
I read a lot of the Old Testament and remember pieces from my childhood. I have this totally insane version of the bible though.
Yes, there a pictures. Very graphic R-rated pictures actually. NSFW but there are people getting stabbed. Severed heads. Lots of bloodletting. For Children!
No nudity though. Eve’s breast are covered by her hair naturally.
Because, remember kids, killing is ok, and sanctioned by God! But sex is bad! Zip it up, Billy! Don’t even touch it! Have this nice AK instead!
I know this is the wrong thread to bring this up, but the “outrage” over the differences in the way sex and violence are handled (in religion, in movies, in video games, in America, whatever) makes me roll my eyes every time.
There are plenty of debates to be had about America and violence. There are plenty of debates to be had about portrayals of sex and sexuality in media. Any number of combinations of these elements of society could be interesting, lots of meaningful discussions could be had, but so often they get connected and boiled down to this shallow argument that somehow treating sex and violence differently in how they’re presented to kids is automatically a hypocrisy, or foolish, or whatever.
Sorry, just a mini-rant about a pet peeve of mine.
I say just scroll X-rated footage directly into the eyeballs of kids from birth and the ones who come away as more than drooling stumps get to join society.
America is way ahead of you, Armando.
Heh, no outrage here, just lame jokes on my part.
I get your point, but I also think there isn’t the sort of 1:1 equivalence you postulate, either. While depictions of sex and sexuality can and do have consequences, particularly in the context of developmental psychology, I struggle to see anything close to the same level of problem with this and depictions of violence. Sex in general is something everyone is expected to participate in, and while it is fraught with perils of various sorts, for most folks it’s normally, well, normal. Violence, on the other hand, even though we all may or will see or be subject to it at some point, is not considered something we should normally engage in or be subject to. That alone seems to me to establish quite a different baseline.
So at base, yes, I think it’s legitimate to say that the way sex and violence are handled in culture are fundamentally hypocritical, in that a thing with far less negative consequences (the act and the depiction) is ranked equal to something that is far more destructive. I reject the idea that the two phenomena are equivalent. That being said, I’d agree that there is far too little thought given to these sorts of comparisons in general discourse, and that there is a lot more complexity of discussion to be had than is usually happening.
Hair bras are a super turn on for me.
What about giving us some examples? For science!
(Actually don’t. Let’s keep this thread US-friendly)
How you know you’re in the past generation - i was in a bar and some women in our group were arguing what the names were of pictures of old actresses hanging on the wall. Only i knew who Raquel Welch or Doris Day were :/.
