Public Nudity

I am amazed at the beauty of nudity. It fulfils some of my entrenched urges notwithstanding my conceited arguments against it, speaking very honestly. I am thankful to all here who so intrepidly have written wonderful posts and they are full of life, vigor and something vital that can heal this sick world. There is no shred of promiscuity and most come up with great aesthetic truths that remained sealed for want of the audacious intellectuals who choose not to withdraw their say nor lower their tone fearing criticism. I always want to write like them but it demands the capacity for convincing people.
Nudity is divinity and thru nudes we see divine forms. That is why in India many temples have nude idols of gods entangled in raptures. It is not eroticism; it is humanism in their great manifestations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

I am amazed at the beauty of nudity. It fulfils some of my entrenched urges notwithstanding my conceited arguments against it, speaking very honestly. I am thankful to all here who so intrepidly have written wonderful posts and they are full of life, vigor and something vital that can heal this sick world. There is no shred of promiscuity and most come up with great aesthetic truths that remained sealed for want of the audacious intellectuals who choose not to withdraw their say nor lower their tone fearing criticism. I always want to write like them but it demands the capacity for convincing people.

---

I agree that human body is the most beautiful creation of all. However, it was taken to the levels that are very degrading. Sad, indeed.

Quote:

---

Nudity is divinity and thru nudes we see divine forms. That is why in India many temples have nude idols of gods entangled in raptures. It is not eroticism; it is humanism in their great manifestations.

---

LOL! I wish I could post an image of Hindu goddess Kali. Trust me, it has nothing to do with humanism. :biggrin5: But I may post an image of goddess Kali that I will not run into trouble.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EKP11mOJRW.../s400/kali.jpe



http://www.exoticindiaart.com/artimages/ba11.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

I agree that human body is the most beautiful creation of all. However, it was taken to the levels that are very degrading. Sad, indeed.





LOL! I wish I could post an image of Hindu goddess Kali. Trust me, it has nothing to do with humanism. :biggrin5: But I may post an image of goddess Kali that I will not run into trouble.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EKP11mOJRW.../s400/kali.jpe



http://www.exoticindiaart.com/artimages/ba11.jpg

---

The posters of Kali are a different issue my friend; it has a different allusion. I am talking about nude, erotic idols in some Indian temples. Our religious pundits have since time immemorial been suppressing human instincts. We are clothed to cover up our organs. These bodily parts do not harm us if we have a clear conscience and do not fuse with our conceptions, prejudices. When you see a naked baby you do not disgrace yourself. The same baby grows and her physical parts mature you keep from them. This is your sheer conditionality bred from social and ethical interpretations of values. Why I call nudity humanity is thru nudity we are exposing ourselves fully untarnished. Look at a nude portrayal of man or woman or animal it is all beauty. The most interesting revelation when I visit Indian temples is erotic idols in which males and females wrapped up in their physical entanglements, in their true and natural manifestations far from all of our understanding smeared by religious or social bigotries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

The posters of Kali are a different issue my friend; it has a different allusion. I am talking about nude, erotic idols in some Indian temples. Our religious pundits have since time immemorial been suppressing human instincts. We are clothed to cover up our organs. These bodily parts do not harm us if we have a clear conscience and do not fuse with our conceptions, prejudices. When you see a naked baby you do not disgrace yourself. The same baby grows and her physical parts mature you keep from them. This is your sheer conditionality bred from social and ethical interpretations of values. Why I call nudity humanity is thru nudity we are exposing ourselves fully untarnished. Look at a nude portrayal of man or woman or animal it is all beauty. The most interesting revelation when I visit Indian temples is erotic idols in which males and females wrapped up in their physical entanglements, in their true and natural manifestations far from all of our understanding smeared by religious or social bigotries.

---

I don’t think that it is a different issue. I am afraid I have a different idea what eroticism means and I definitely wouldn’t want eroticism of blood thirsty Kali. LOL! ........... But if you like pornography and orgy……than you would like the images I have mentioned earlier. :biggrin5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

I don’t think that it is a different issue. I am afraid I have a different idea what eroticism means and I definitely wouldn’t want eroticism of blood thirsty Kali. LOL! ........... But if you like pornography and orgy……than you would like the images I have mentioned earlier. :biggrin5:

---

It is not pornography and orgy that moves me or goading to write the comments I have been putting forth here. I do not loathe pornography and orgy and am not against them at all or never like to campaign against them socially and individually as long as they do not damage human situation. I have no intense interest in these facets of life, though they have enough substance to stimulate me. My aspect is pure aesthetic, the way we watch copulating animals, our dogs, cats etc. There is no vulgarity. Vulgarity is in our eyes, in our ways of dealing with it and making analogy. Or else I see beauty manifest in nudity. Humanity married with nudity with an unsullied sense of aesthetics impresses me, not the nudity of a brute sabotaging the innocent. If I from this standpoint look at a nude picture or a nude woman or man it only electrifies my sense of beauty not my inner brutal urges that lead to gratify the suppressed wantonness in human beings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

It is not pornography and orgy that moves me or goading to write the comments I have been putting forth here. I do not loathe pornography and orgy and am not against them at all or never like to campaign against them socially and individually as long as they do not damage human situation. I have no intense interest in these facets of life, though they have enough substance to stimulate me. My aspect is pure aesthetic, the way we watch copulating animals, our dogs, cats etc. There is no vulgarity. Vulgarity is in our eyes, in our ways of dealing with it and making analogy. Or else I see beauty manifest in nudity. Humanity married with nudity with an unsullied sense of aesthetics impresses me, not the nudity of a brute sabotaging the innocent. If I from this standpoint look at a nude picture or a nude woman or man it only electrifies my sense of beauty not my inner brutal urges that lead to gratify the suppressed wantonness in human beings

---

Hm…..but you wrote with enthusiasm about eroticism in Hindu temples. I was also talking about the images from the temples. Therefore, I said that we have a different idea about eroticism. We agree about the beauty of a human body but disagree about manifestation of our humanness. You are not saying that it would be good to have public sex…like animals. :biggrin5:

Secondly, whether we want or not paintings and images evoke feelings. If women are depicted with the emphasis on their sexuality, those paintings evoke feelings. As my male friend said, we are bombarded 24/7 with images that evoke sexual feelings. The beauty of eroticism and human body is gone as there is not that much space left for mystery and deep feelings but second charka emotionalty. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Hm…..but you wrote with enthusiasm about eroticism in Hindu temples. I was also talking about the images from the temples. Therefore, I said that we have a different idea about eroticism. We agree about the beauty of a human body but disagree about manifestation of our humanness. You are not saying that it would be good to have public sex…like animals. :biggrin5:

Secondly, whether we want or not paintings and images evoke feelings. If women are depicted with the emphasis on their sexuality, those paintings evoke feelings. As my male friend said, we are bombarded 24/7 with images that evoke sexual feelings. The beauty of eroticism and human body is gone as there is not that much space left for mystery and deep feelings but second charka emotionalty. :p

---

All I want to say is I love honesty above all else. I recall once in my childhood I saw a naked woman. She was young and full of vigor. She was taking a bath from a fountain. In fact the lady came from a tribal community. I had not seen a stripped woman and very honestly speaking I always wanted to see the thing women and men were hiding. I had seen nude children but never nude adults. This curiosity grew and grew and there was no scrap of vulgarity. I wanted to see that the way I wanted to see a rose. When I saw the tribal woman completely exposed something, some quiver passed inside me. I sneakily watched the scene. I was not matured enough to observe it thru an erotic lens or it did not breed sexual feelings inside me. I still distinctly carry the thing she had exposed.

Now I look at it from different lenses and I mingle the feeling with aesthetics. I still have the urge to see an unclothed lady. I do not want to rationalize the feelings that can arouse in me. This is beyond philosophical thought. This is purity and humanity, not something obscene, something as sweet and elegant as a rose.

When I see deities in temples I think the ancient carvers or artists had those aesthetic images in their minds while sculpting such erotically aesthetic idols. Kali has that horrific image too as you have mentioned, but Kali or Shakti and Shiva when entangled in cosmic postures, though it seems to us erotic will fall into a fit of raptures become unified creators.

SLG Quoted-Does she? And would you have us believe that women are so easily swayed and weak-minded that the media has had such a profound effect upon them... and yet not equally upon men? It would seem to me that men and women are equally influenced by the images put forth in the media... while at the same time, the media is quite often a mirror of society... and the roles assumed by men and women.

Well, how do you explain the growing number of young girls and women who suffer from anorexia nervosa or bulimia? How do you explain the results of a pull done by one of the magazines where women were asked if they had a choice to be slim or to have a successful career, if I remember correctly, it was 93% of women who chose being slim than having a successful career. They had also another choice: to be slim, to have fulfilling relationships, or successful career. If my memory is correct, it was 51% of women who chose being slim than having successful career, or fulfilling relationships. I was shocked reading the results. Media knows how to manipulate us. Men are not manipulated through media to the same extent as women.

Being honest, I can't say I'm overly sympathetic toward anyone stupid enough to allow the media to so sway them. There is an off switch on the TV, the radio, and the computer. Personally, I almost never watch TV or listen to the radio. I agree that the media has long been a rather malevolent force... although again I'm not overly concerned about weak-thinking adults who allow the media to do their thinking for them when it comes to establishing ideals of how they should look. I am more concerned about the media impact upon children who lack the ability to critically think about what message is trying to be sold as well as upon political discourse in the nation as morons like Rush fuel the fires of extremism. Of course, all our freedoms... including freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press come at a cost, and one aspect of this cost is that these freedoms demand a certain vigilance... and an employment of critical thought, which seems to be beyond the abilities of many.

Blaming the media for your self-image or lack of self esteem... or simply lack of self respect is far too easy. What solution do you propose? An enforced Puritanism in order to safeguard the weak-minded and the weak-willed? Perhaps a form of Islamic iconoclasm eliminating all representations of the human being... after all, it is next to impossible to establish any clearly agreed upon divide between ART and Pornography and Eroticism. Do we eliminate all representations of women (or men for that matter) who might be construed in any way as being sexually attractive for fear of the unattainable ideal such establishes in the minds of some?

While we are on this topic, a question comes to mind. How is it that it is men who are seemingly so influenced... even aroused by appearances... to the extent that the vast wealth of images of sexually attractive men... as well as women... have been historically both the creation of males artists directed at a male audience... and yet it is women, if we are to accept your argument, who are the most influenced by such imagery... to the point of allowing it to overwhelm or circumvent their ability to think critically? It seems telling that women's magazines are laden with images of women, while men's magazines are laden with images of... women. Hmmm? Men... at least heterosexual men... are looking admiringly at the opposite sex (Should we expect otherwise? Do we imagine that this can or should be changed?), while women are looking at other women with an eye to comparison and establishing an ideal self-image. Of course, once again, the individuals have the power not to buy the magazines if they feel that they are offering something they dislike. I'm assuming most heterosexual men would immediately cancel their subscriptions to Sports Illustrated if the "swimsuit" issue was suddenly filled with images of buff men in Speedos.

But I'm also left to wonder whether the media has not simply capitalized upon the behaviors of the sexes. How many men (beyond our resident dandy Alexander) arrive at a party and begin to compare clothes with other men or make comments about how other men are dressed or their appearances in general... one way or the other. "Oh Jim... what a lovely tie! You must tell me where you got it!" "Bob, Bob... you simply must tell me who does your hair!" "My God! can you believe the trousers Dan is wearing? I mean really! They don't do a thing for him. What was he thinking." I can't believe Brian actually wore that here... I mean he's such a slut!"

BTW, you love art as much as I do…but I love different kind of art. I don’t care about the price of the painting.

The price of art has nothing to do with its aesthetic merits either for or against. It does, however, hint at what is in demand... and hence valued. I mentioned the price of Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer and the popularity of his The Kiss as one form of proof that traditional ideals of "beauty" are not completely undervalued in the Modern era. Personally, I think the Pollock and the DeKooning are mediocre examples of their work and certainly grossly overpriced. But then the best paintings by both artists are already in museums. The Picasso and the Klimt are real gems... but surely any painting at such a price is overvalued... until you compare the price with the salaries of certain pop stars and athletes and CEOs of failed banks.

ftil- I agree that human body is the most beautiful creation of all. However, it was taken to the levels that are very degrading.

Where? Who decides what is "degrading"?

osho- The posters of Kali are a different issue my friend... Look at a nude portrayal of man or woman or animal it is all beauty. The most interesting revelation when I visit Indian temples is erotic idols in which males and females wrapped up in their physical entanglements, in their true and natural manifestations far from all of our understanding smeared by religious or social bigotries.

I don’t think that it is a different issue. I am afraid I have a different idea what eroticism means and I definitely wouldn’t want eroticism of blood thirsty Kali. LOL! ........... But if you like pornography and orgy……than you would like the images I have mentioned earlier.

It seems to me that you misread... intentionally?... any comments that challenge your own thoughts. I suspect that member osho is referring to the sculptural imagery of the temples such as those on the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva Temple:

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

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...w=1280&bih=856

The erotic sculpture on this temple is surely unsettling by Western standards in that it presents a celebration of physical love in the most open... even epic of manners. Such art has nothing to do with Kali, violence, sadomasochism, etc... Terming them "pornographic" says more about you than it does about the art.

...whether we want or not paintings and images evoke feelings. If women are depicted with the emphasis on their sexuality, those paintings evoke feelings.

Do you suppose that artists have not also explored the physical and sexual attraction of the male body... that a physical ideal of the male appearance is somehow missing from the arts and media?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/...dca86015_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/...f9e23402_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6076/...d09634dcc7.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6067/...70068278_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/...9850bc1b_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6186/...945172c7_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/...535400ae_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/...0e12ce74_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/...ebc4bf08_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/...4515f2d5_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/...57e7ab00_z.jpg

continued...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/...1cd02e3e_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6205/...4944edee_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6069/...d0754bd0_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/...ce9b9a14_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6079/...00fca639_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6061/...164c2a2d_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6184/...4bddd587_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6210/...aec1e9741c.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/...c63861e5c4.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6206/...622be8c7_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/...66329567_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6067/...6a150e9e_z.jpg

**********

Reminds me of Alison Bechdel's slightly tongue in cheek break down of female representation in comics.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z...py/Bechdel.png

Applying the famous Bechdel Test to movies is kind of revealing too.

:p

Quote:

---

stlukesguild wrote:

It seems to me that you misread... intentionally?... any comments that challenge your own thoughts. I suspect that member osho is referring to the sculptural imagery of the temples such as those on the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva Temple:

---

I didn’t but you have missed or misread my discussion with Osho. :biggrin5: I was talking about images from Hindu temples that I decided not to post on this forum.

You are very quick to make judgments without knowing a person. I am not afraid of challenging my beliefs. On the contrary, I examine my beliefs that I hold as the truth. I am delighted when people who thoroughly research a subject can show me what I didn’t know. I am afraid that you are caught up in your projections. :brow:

Quote:

---

Where? Who decides what is "degrading"?

---

I wouldn’t want to go there any more. I have written about it but you didn’t address it and I am not going to repeat myself. :p As I said earlier, if you have seen see Jean Kilbourne’s video, our discussion would be different

Quote:

---

The erotic sculpture on this temple is surely unsettling by Western standards in that it presents a celebration of physical love in the most open... even epic of manners. Such art has nothing to do with Kali, violence, sadomasochism, etc... Terming them "pornographic" says more about you than it does about the art.

---

Well, I didn’t based my opinion purely on images. Last year, I have done an intense research about Hindu religion and its impact on emotional and mental well being.
Again you are quick to make judgment. I expressed earlier why I didn’t want to have anything with Kali eroticism. Perhaps, I should elaborate more but it is not a topic of this tread. I may do it on mythology and religion tread, though.

Quote:

---

Do you suppose that artists have not also explored the physical and sexual attraction of the male body... that a physical ideal of the male appearance is somehow missing from the arts and media?

---

Hm….where did I say that. LOL!

Quote:

---

The price of art has nothing to do with its aesthetic merits either for or against. It does, however, hint at what is in demand... and hence valued.

---

Well, I said that I didn’t care about price as you emphasized the price of the Lucian Freud’s paintings. I personally don’t like his art, not matter how much does it cost. :biggrin5:

De gustibus non est disputandum. :wink5:

The images are really beautiful <3

Quote:

---

Posted by Luke:
Being honest, I can't say I'm overly sympathetic toward anyone stupid enough to allow the media to so sway them. There is an off switch on the TV, the radio, and the computer. Personally, I almost never watch TV or listen to the radio. I agree that the media has long been a rather malevolent force... although again I'm not overly concerned about weak-thinking adults who allow the media to do their thinking for them when it comes to establishing ideals of how they should look. I am more concerned about the media impact upon children who lack the ability to critically think about what message is trying to be sold as well as upon political discourse in the nation as morons like Rush fuel the fires of extremism. Of course, all our freedoms... including freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press come at a cost, and one aspect of this cost is that these freedoms demand a certain vigilance... and an employment of critical thought, which seems to be beyond the abilities of many.

---

I agree. The concern is for children. Marketers know to target them. The mind learns to accept all sorts of mixed messages, such as that a person can drink Coke and have great teeth. Then people can be sold religious and political ideas that are full of complete contradictions. [My personal belief is that the Rush people who profess to oppose messages that corrupt women and families are the ones behind the scenes promoting it. The so-called "family values" people are the "porn" people. If they can weaken people to where they can't think and want to spend their lives drinking soda and watching trash TV and porn, they will also buy into churches that feature rock and roll bands and the politicians that go with them. These two factions being separate is an illusion. It creates confusion and results in individuals (such as you, Luke, and I) seeming, at times, to be on opposite sides when we both abhor Rush.]

I didn't grow up watching television and I can tell that in certain areas my thinking is divergent from the women around me. I view my weight from a health standpoint. This concept is foreign to most women. (I was once diagnosed with anorexia, a mild case, but the diagnosis was lifted because my problem has been lifelong and is caused from nervousness affecting my appetite, and had nothing to do with trying to be thin.) I feel okay about myself. I have no desire to look like some kind of fakey pin-up.

If a person has not been molded by advertising from childhood, she can't be sold anything - not soda, not teeth whiteners, not breast implants. And I adore my Sonicare and my computer for the right reasons.

I don't think it's just children that are affected by advertising - but all of us are. we all change our buying - not immediately because these things aren't immediate - but gradually. Do you buy the same things you bought 2 or three years ago? Probably not, and probably not just because your habits were directed by yourself.

What the advertisers are trying to do is to impinge just a bit upon your consciousness for that fraction of a second when your mind is distracted or on auto pilot or what you usually buy is not there, or what you want is more expensive. They're not interested in debate and rationale. They are going for the time when the only product on the shelf you recognise is what they want to sell you. It might take a bit of a push - an offer - two for one - a cheaper price - but the recognition that comes from repetition, or an advertising campaign, or distate for the presenter, or annoyance with the tune.

It's fascinating how t works. here are two examples where you think - how do they sell anything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8CTscW3dpI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0-2n8JHc1M&NR=1

I feel like punching the window bloke - and the newer ones are worse.

I agree that the guy is extremely irritating but not all adverts are as bad.

http://youtu.be/rVhto-jt438

Or are they?

I have always said that all advertising is evil, truly evil.:mad5:

Ultimate manipulation.

Avoid it at all costs (though good luck with that...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I have always said that all advertising is evil, truly evil.:mad5:

Ultimate manipulation.

Avoid it at all costs (though good luck with that...).

---

True but some of it is enjoyable.


http://youtu.be/ZRwBBI1TGHM

I recall an advertisement a few years ago brought to us by - advertisers! - in which they contrasted the difference between western advertising with all its mixed hopes (fast and shiny cars, new and improved colour televisions and programs, wonderful holidays, fresh food in supermarkets, the spring clothing range, etc etc) and then switched to scenes of Russian sausage queues, a clunky tram system, residential buildings - all grey and drab and horrible.

The closer: 'Advertising... you'd notice it more if it wasn't there'

I was sold. If it's a necessary evil, bring it on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

True but some of it is enjoyable.


http://youtu.be/ZRwBBI1TGHM

---

Maybe fun and classic, but stealing Bach for tobacco and cancer! Can't be a good game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

I recall an advertisement a few years ago brought to us by - advertisers! - in which they contrasted the difference between western advertising with all its mixed hopes (fast and shiny cars, new and improved colour televisions and programs, wonderful holidays, fresh food in supermarkets, the spring clothing range, etc etc) and then switched to scenes of Russian sausage queues, a clunky tram system, residential buildings - all grey and drab and horrible.

The closer: 'Advertising... you'd notice it more if it wasn't there'

I was sold. If it's a necessary evil, bring it on!

---

You wouldn't say that if you peered into the void as much as I have with advertising. For me it is one of the worst evils around today. Harvard psychologists and so, f**king kids brains with shi*e in order to sell more plastic etc, etc. Screw that!

On top of that I am so sensitive to jingle crap that there is not much of a day goes by that it totally invades my brain - that and ice cream vans. Awful.

I have to mute every single advert on the TV before my head explodes - "because your worth it!" etc, etc, vile, evil trash!!

I would rather have long queues of near starvation every day that to have to listen to one single advert.

What a manipulative machine of pure evil - more evil than you could ever imagine.

Avoid at all costs*.

* However you cannot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I have always said that all advertising is evil, truly evil.:mad5:

Ultimate manipulation.

Avoid it at all costs (though good luck with that...).

---

I agree. It's insulting how stupid they seem to think we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I agree. It's insulting how stupid they seem to think we are.

---

Miss Woolf is so correct!!

Also, advertisting is so much more evil than even that.

I have a thing about advertising...:yesnod:

Sometimes commercials are cute, like that Pimms one, (but I don't see many.) One reason they can't sell me anything is that I also avoid all the advertising I can.

I don't understand why there are TVs so many places I go, such as the hospital emergency room lobby. We have to search to find a place where we're not watching TV. It's so weird - like this week, the TV on the wall is replaying the 9/11 disaster. It's the same thing at the lab I go to - many people are ill, there to have blood drawn, and the TV is showing murders.

I rarely ever pick up women's magazines either, but in the hospital I did pick up one recently, the June Ladies' Home Journal, and I ripped out this article about the singer Sheryl Crow. The article raised the topic of tattoos.

Sheryl says that after surviving breast cancer, she has redefined what matters most in life. She used to always put others before herself, but now puts herself first.

She says, "this is one of the reasons I've kept the tattoos around my breasts," On her chest are the marks from her radiation therapy: she could have had them removed but chose not to. The cancer, she says was her wake-up call to take care of herself. "Sometimes I find myself slipping back into the position of being everyone's caretaker. Then I'll get out of the shower and see the marks. They remind me that I have to be the most important person in my life."

So I was comparing these tattoos and their meaning to the others that I see (along with all of the cutting and burning that I suppose people are emulating from something they saw on the Oprah show) which are done for the thrill of hurting oneself, as was mentioned on the bloggers thread. Interesting contrast.

To paraphrase the great Don Draper - If you have moral qualms with advertising, don't buy buy stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

To paraphrase the great Don Draper - If you have moral qualms with advertising, don't buy buy stuff.

---

I refuse to buy stuff partly as a protest, as an act of rebellion.

I did buy a Kindle, but I have mixed feelings about it. Sometimes I almost feel suspicious of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

To paraphrase the great Don Draper - If you have moral qualms with advertising, don't buy buy stuff.

---

That's like saying don't let the subconsious propaganda, that's around you, all the time in every single media form, effect the way you live your life - just ignore it!!

It is not just about saying "here is a product buy me". It does that on one level, but on another it zombifies the entire world, fills it with artificial desire and causes all manner of chaos and unhappiness.

Also, anyone who works in selling insurance or advertises insurance, especially car insurance, should be shot on sight without trial, along with this bastard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_-9QFvhQWo

As is often the case, this is a long way from Public Nudity which is the title of this thread, but while we are on the subject, I think Neely is taking a rather extreme view of advertising. While we know that it exists solely to entice the gullible to part with their money, there is no compulsion for them to do so.
For example, I don't watch TV these days but, even when I did, I virtually ignored ITV not just because of the adverts but because the programmes were usually aimed at people whose critical faculties were, to say the least, not very high: hence the advertising. The BBC, which admittedly has its hidden political agenda, was free from adverts and therefore, in my view, a better deal from a programming perspective.
I have the same reaction to pop music which, like advertising, is very pervasive and is also designed to entice the gullible to part with their money but, as with advertising, I simply ignore it. I have never bought anything because it was advertised and I have never willingly listened to pop music; hearing it piped into shopping areas or in the hairdresser's etc., tells me all I need to know about it and I react accordingly. If others are more easily persuaded to part with their money via these mediums that's up to them.

I don't understand why there are TVs so many places I go, such as the hospital emergency room lobby. We have to search to find a place where we're not watching TV. It's so weird - like this week, the TV on the wall is replaying the 9/11 disaster. It's the same thing at the lab I go to - many people are ill, there to have blood drawn, and the TV is showing murders.

We are bombarded with TVs for the same reason we are bombarded with loud music in bars and restaurants, and for the same reason that people go about with i-pods wired to their heads or engaged on the cell phone at all times: Laziness. People demand constant stimuli because they are unable to think for themselves... they are almost afraid of silence which would demand you think... daydream... muse... reflect. When I was a child, the doctor's offices were quiet. There was no TV or radio blaring. One sat and daydreamed... or read a book or magazine. Reading, however, demands an effort upon the part of the reader. Watching the TV or listening to Lady Gaga for the 1000th time is far easier. Personally, I am disgusted with TVs in restaurants and waiting rooms. If I must wait an half hour to see the doctor or for my prescription to be filled I don't want to be bombarded with Oprah or some moronic sportscaster.

So I was comparing these tattoos and their meaning to the others that I see ...which are done for the thrill of hurting oneself...

Remember your own pierced ears, Vonny. Did you have this done as a means of self mutilation or a desire to hurt yourself? I doubt it. I would presume that the majority of those who get tattoos or piercings get them for the same reasons anyone might have their ears pierced. They find them beautiful and see them as a form of artistic self-expression. Human beings have been engaged in attempts to alter their appearances forever.

The most obvious means is through fashion... which we have discussed... as well as the cutting and styling of our hair. But there are the temporary henna bridal designs employed by Indian women:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/...cc55ac8c05.jpg

The typical biker-bar tattoos:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6195/...391b52769c.jpg

Or something far more elaborate:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/...e2ee386b78.jpg

Piercings:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/...106a56eb84.jpg

Or other alterations:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6073/...d3408f70ce.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/...9889ab2ee9.jpg

Western civilization, thanks to the Judaic foundation, long engaged in the circumcision of males... and it is only here that I have problems with such body alterations (and I might note I have no such piercings or tattoos myself) is when they are imposed upon children or other by force... especially as a means of control as with male and female circumcision, foot-binding, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

As is often the case, this is a long way from Public Nudity which is the title of this thread, but while we are on the subject, I think Neely is taking a rather extreme view of advertising. While we know that it exists solely to entice the gullible to part with their money, there is no compulsion for them to do so.
For example, I don't watch TV these days but, even when I did, I virtually ignored ITV not just because of the adverts but because the programmes were usually aimed at people whose critical faculties were, to say the least, not very high: hence the advertising. The BBC, which admittedly has its hidden political agenda, was free from adverts and therefore, in my view, a better deal from a programming perspective.
I have the same reaction to pop music which, like advertising, is very pervasive and is also designed to entice the gullible to part with their money but, as with advertising, I simply ignore it. I have never bought anything because it was advertised and I have never willingly listened to pop music; hearing it piped into shopping areas or in the hairdresser's etc., tells me all I need to know about it and I react accordingly. If others are more easily persuaded to part with their money via these mediums that's up to them.

---

Yes what a joy watching The Killing on BBC4 has been without the constant annoying interruptions, you would have got on any other non-BBC channel. I also don’t watch much TV because most of it is a pile of rubbish but The Killing has been outstanding viewing, almost faultless programming and better than anything that has been screened for a while.

Anyway, you can limit the amount of TV you watch, and so reduce the poison of TV adverts, but you can’t escape advertising in some form or other for a single day of your life, unless you went and lived in a cave (and I bet you would still get fast food fliers). You can’t escape it for a second. By all means you can try to ignore it but it is still there like a plague spreading its propaganda.

Of course if people are foolish enough to part with their money because a fat man screams at them, or something just as annoying, then that’s their problem (one of the most successful adverts of last year). Fools parting with money. One thing I object to though is how advertising normalises middle/high end products. So that a new car is only £9,999 on road, or that holiday abroad is a bargain at £999 per person or this and that that everybody has one. Such language is internalised so that if you can’t afford these products, that everybody has, at only £9999 at a drop of a hat, then you are poor, a failure of no good – at least this is the implied signification from such language and people digest and internalise it and are made to feel bad when they can’t live up to these artificial standards set by the propagandaists.

I also don’t like the subtle tricky of some advertising which masks real desires and human drives with a product that cannot meet that desire (or even make it worse). Obviously sex is used all the time with no subtlety. Put a half naked woman on a packet of cat litter and people will buy more of it! Advertisers are quick to latch on to the other more subtle needs like friendship or freedom though. So that people are told to “drink Magners with friends” or we are shown a car being driven down an open road, signifying freedom, so that basic human desires are being masked with a product which can’t possibly meet that need. Another misery creator.

I also strongly object to the use child psychologists to learn how best to manipulate the minds of children through advertising – of which millions are spent annually by companies. Instead of filling the minds of children with something useful, or allowing them to grow naturally, we allow dictators to fill their minds with nonsense, so that half of them can’t exist without purple dinosaurs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZivl5iKCo) or the latest piece of plastic or alcopop drink. Of course on top of that, there’re simply just so damn annoying.

I also can’t stand insurance of all types and think essential insurances should be covered by non-profit, council run organisations.

Other annoying things are police helicopters and ice cream vans.:D

Quote:

---

We are bombarded with TVs for the same reason we are bombarded with loud music in bars and restaurants, and for the same reason that people go about with i-pods wired to their heads or engaged on the cell phone at all times: Laziness. People demand constant stimuli because they are unable to think for themselves... they are almost afraid of silence which would demand you think... daydream... muse... reflect. When I was a child, the doctor's offices were quiet. There was no TV or radio blaring. One sat and daydreamed... or read a book or magazine. Reading, however, demands an effort upon the part of the reader. Watching the TV or listening to Lady Gaga for the 1000th time is far easier. Personally, I am disgusted with TVs in restaurants and waiting rooms. If I must wait an half hour to see the doctor or for my prescription to be filled I don't want to be bombarded with Oprah or some moronic sportscaster.

---

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people. A healthy balance is fine, but there's not much of that about it seems.

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people.

It's a large part of the problem behind kids behavior and learning issues in school. The little urchins are used to continual stimuli and continual entertainment and even education "leaders" fall for this crap pushing teachers to make the lessons "engaging"... ie. "entertaining". It starts with lazy and/or ignorant parents employing the TV, DVDs, and video games as a cheap baby sitter. No need to spend time with the kids when you can just plop them in front of the TV. Now I'll not suggest I never watched my share of TV. As a kid I'd watch the morning kid's shows before the school bus came and when I got home I might watch an hour of cartoons... or more if the weather was bad... but I spent far more time outside... playing sports, exploring the forest behind my home, riding bikes, inventing various role-playing games, etc... Ultimately, the constant presence of the media is a major source of the obesity in children in the wealthier nations.

Neely, my already high respect for you just went up a few notches.

In a similar vein, I really hate branded designer clothing. People pay daft sums of money to a big company to advertise their brand. It's crackers.

I had an argument with someone in the pub the other night, who laughed at my rather ancient and horrible mobile phone. He was lording it up with his expensive iThing, so I felt the need to make the point. That cost him hundreds of pounds, not to mention the monthly service charge, which in reality means that he is only renting his phone. Mine, as I pointed out, cost £15. When it runs out of money, I put some more on. End of. Well, says he, it can't access the internet or be used as a GPS, can it? No, but I own a cheap GPS (£30) and if I want to check the internet, I go to my computer. What my £15 phone can do is call people, which is what I wanted it for.

He didn't have much of an answer for that. So many of the things we are encouraged to buy are just useless status symbols.

I'll give public nudity one thing: it's hard to brand, and there are no pockets to carry around designer junk. That said, if public nudity became the standard, I bet there would be a lot of people queing up to get 'Nike' or 'Reebok' tattooed on their chests...

Nudity in part has always been a subject of entertainment. We publicly denounce full nudity, though personally write poems in praise of them. Nudity is something most want to see and praise thru their poetry, paintings and music. Books with some air of vulgarity or sex have always been acclaimed things and that attracted human attentions. D H Lawrence has sex in abundance in his novels and his books have been classical. Does it not speak volumes of the beauty of nudity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people.

It's a large part of the problem behind kids behavior and learning issues in school. The little urchins are used to continual stimuli and continual entertainment and even education "leaders" fall for this crap pushing teachers to make the lessons "engaging"... ie. "entertaining". It starts with lazy and/or ignorant parents employing the TV, DVDs, and video games as a cheap baby sitter. No need to spend time with the kids when you can just plop them in front of the TV. Now I'll not suggest I never watched my share of TV. As a kid I'd watch the morning kid's shows before the school bus came and when I got home I might watch an hour of cartoons... or more if the weather was bad... but I spent far more time outside... playing sports, exploring the forest behind my home, riding bikes, inventing various role-playing games, etc... Ultimately, the constant presence of the media is a major source of the obesity in children in the wealthier nations.

---

Yes I agree completely with that. I think that in trying to stimulate kids in school with constant pressure for DVD/interactive and IT we are in danger of doing more harm than good. Of course by all means use these things moderately, it would be foolish not to do so, but by over-using them we are not helping students.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

Neely, my already high respect for you just went up a few notches.

In a similar vein, I really hate branded designer clothing. People pay daft sums of money to a big company to advertise their brand. It's crackers.

I had an argument with someone in the pub the other night, who laughed at my rather ancient and horrible mobile phone. He was lording it up with his expensive iThing, so I felt the need to make the point. That cost him hundreds of pounds, not to mention the monthly service charge, which in reality means that he is only renting his phone. Mine, as I pointed out, cost £15. When it runs out of money, I put some more on. End of. Well, says he, it can't access the internet or be used as a GPS, can it? No, but I own a cheap GPS (£30) and if I want to check the internet, I go to my computer. What my £15 phone can do is call people, which is what I wanted it for.

He didn't have much of an answer for that. So many of the things we are encouraged to buy are just useless status symbols.

I'll give public nudity one thing: it's hard to brand, and there are no pockets to carry around designer junk. That said, if public nudity became the standard, I bet there would be a lot of people queing up to get 'Nike' or 'Reebok' tattooed on their chests...

---

Ha, ha thanks. Good point about branded clothing, what a stroke of genius in getting paid for people advertising your product!

I've also got a very, very basic phone and £10 lasts me about 2 months.

Trainers? What is it with the trainer fad with youngsters? Hundreds of pounds for trainers, that's crazy. I remember a school lad laughing at my old trainers which lasted two years, decathlon ones, again genius marketing and advertising and brain washed status symbols trainers.

Loki and Neely you are both correct, and another point may have been to direct them to the miserable battery life between recharge (ridiculous!), and almost junks the idea of 'mobility' in the phones.

But actually the idea of cramming features into them isn't new. A high def still/video camera, radio, gameboy, note taker, media player (with enough memory to hold entire symphonies and movies), word processor, net enabled computer wonder device is now about eight years old. The phone makers each had prototypes; trouble was - the battery.

Who, they reasoned, could possibly want a phone that needed to be recharged daily?

No one.

Obviously.

But if you only want a phone, that's fine too.

(Mine has a really cool feature in text to speech and speech to text - loving it very much, and the 3D screen is something that has to be seen to be believed) (Oh, and Nova 2 is a lot of fun between games of Pinball Deluxe and Battleships :) )

I don't have a mobile phone and have no intention of getting one, despite frequent requests from companies trying to sell me one. My standard reply is that, having quit work where I was constantly being pestered by the phone, I need a mobile like a hole in the head.
I don't deny that they have their uses but I will do without one, as I have plenty of other things to do other than waste time in pointless conversation for the benefit of telephone companies. Even now, when the telephone rings I curse it, so why would I want to inflict further annoyance on myself.
As for designer clothing, that's the biggest laugh since I don't know when. How can sticking on a silly name like Tommy Hilfiger or even a common one like Ted Baker, make any difference to the clothes you are wearing? Someone sent me a polo shirt from New York a couple of weeks ago as a present and it has a Ralph Lauren logo on it. When I checked the price of it that was displayed on the customs declaration form attached to the parcel, I was amazed that anyone would pay so much for a shirt that was probably made in a sweat shop in Hong Kong.
It's really depressing shopping for clothes when stores have lots of so-called designer items that are usually very poor quality and look like they have been knocked up by a ten-year-old. I can quite see why some people might prefer public nudity.

I actually have a so-called "smart phone" with internet, GPS, etc... The price is not too bad considering it covers three phones in the family for unlimited usage. The majority of my use is as a phone, camera, and texting... but it has come in helpful to pop up the internet when I'm out somewhere to find directions or a place to eat. Personally I don't have any problem with the battery charge. I can usually go three days between charges unless I'm on the phone for hours, and I can charge it using the USB port off the front of my computer while I'm typing away... or I can charge it in the car. In spite of this, I rarely use the phone in the car unless necessary (and certainly never text there), and I'm not on the phone when I'm spending time with family or out at a restaurant. I remember a comic scene not long ago when four people came in at a local Chinese restaurant, sat down, and all proceeded to call someone on the phone. 4 people sitting face to face where they might engage in conversation... and they are on the phone with someone else... unless they were all talking to each other??:eek6:

You describe it as comic, but it actually makes complete sense: why not talk to the people you have something in common with rather than your family whom you didn't choose?

It just occurred to me that of the five calls I've made with mine so far two were both to wrong numbers, and I'm not in the habit of giving my number away willy on the nilly.

But it's that net access that's really the thing - a Hitchhikers Guide and media pod. And spare batteries are cheap enough for intense use (hint: if you go hiking, make sure you have a few fully charged spares in case you get particularly lost so you can contact someone on your walkie-talkie, and they can triangulate your exact position - and you can listen to music and read a book until they arrive. Though of course a hard case should also be considered in the off chance you fall down a precipice into a ravine*.)

Also just for driving - accidents happen and there are plenty of places where you can spin-off the road and not be seen by the passing cars. Or even just crossing the park and suddenly feel lightheaded - a potential stroke or heart attack? Snakebite? Anything - these are the lifesavers of the future.

Taking pictures and videos of crimes as they happen - could be useful to getting someone justice. Actually there are tons of possible uses beyond selfish accessory. Lyrics, guitar tabs, scientific calculator, world university - you name it.


*The bloke who cut his hand off, and more recently the one who cut his toes off - should have had their phones with them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

Also just for driving - accidents happen and there are plenty of places where you can spin-off the road and not be seen by the passing cars. Or even just crossing the park and suddenly feel lightheaded - a potential stroke or heart attack? Snakebite? Anything - these are the lifesavers of the future.

---

Sounds like yet another vehicle by which the gene pool will continue to be diluted

A few days ago I saw a couple flimsily dressed and one can visualize their insides in a park and it was a park for youngsters and you cannot come across elderly people out there. Now to relate that scene I want to say that this scene in which some people were awfully in some sort of nudity, if not full and of course their bare limbs, fronts, tummies were glowing and I liked those parts speaking aesthetically in point of fact. They were appealing and if there was anything ugly, they are my fixations only.
Nude objects whether they are people or anything are per se not ugly things and we all secretly admire.

Now coming to the point to expose them publicly I think that if the public in view constitutes the ones I saw in the park there is no harm and if the ones come from a highly conservative social tier the problem will crop up then

Nudity in both sexes is very much discouraged in Islam, my religion. And, coincidently enough; the same applies to my culture--Hausa. We're the predominant tribe in the northern Nigeria. You can hardly see a full-fledged Hausa person, especially a woman, dresses indecently--yah, incidence in whatever rectitude. I really like it that way.

Nudity in both sexes is very much discouraged in Islam, my religion. And, coincidently enough; the same applies to my culture--Hausa.

I fully respect your beliefs... however, I question whether Islam... or any other religion... should have the right to impose their beliefs upon others.