Brilliant discussion...
A subject was raised for discussion. What I have read is three pages (by forum default view) of snide remarks about users and very little that actually approaches discussion of the subject.
Now, rather than simply make smart-arse comments about users, I shall discuss the subject.
Personally I find nothing wrong with the concept of looking at healthy human bodies. I prefer to look at female bodies because women are simply better looking to me. The gender matter is of course all about personal preference and therefore does not need to play a role in discussing the concept of publicly displayed nudity or nigh-nudity.
So, I find nothing wrong with viewing attractive women. However, I do find it rather pathetic to be mesmerised by a nipple or some pubic hair. If seeing such things displayed in public is really so incredibly important to you, if it makes you giggle or whatever, you probably simply don't have a sex life. There is a reason certain parts of the human body are often termed "private parts". It is becuse these parts are specifically involved in procreation, which generally occurs between only two people who are intimate with each other. There is a clear relationship betweem these physical pieces of flesh and human behaviour; in particular, there is a clear relationship between our "private parts" and privacy. Or do you all simply drop and shag on the floor of McDonalds after a cheeseburger?
There is a possible counter opinion which could be expressed as "It's pornography, the entire point is to display such attributes". That is akin to saying "Yes, the entire point of me sticking a knife in him was to kill him". It validates the action by giving a clear link from cause to effect, yet does not provide any substantial reason for the action. Thus, saying "That's the point of pornography" does not actually supply a reason. So we can move on from that too.
So, we have human behaviour which involves a clear link between privacy and our physical assets used for reproduction. And we have public displays of such assets. Clearly public displays are counter to human behaviour.
But what about private displays? Again, if you need a collection of Playboy magazines, you probably don't have a sex life. Real women are far superior.
Is there a moral problem with women being portrayed in such ways? Well, we live in a culture in which young people are not taught enough about sex. many things, they are told, are taboo. And those very magazines, containing material absolutely integral to the desires and development of young adults, have age restrictions on them to prevent them falling into the hands of those who could most benefit from them. The law encourages the practice of such materials instead falling into the hands of people who simply can't get a sex life, such as undisciplined grots with no self-control or drive or willpower, no way to force a better condition or life for themselves. Thus we associate such materials with less desirable people, further enforcing the taboo against such materials. With the idea that these materials are for the filthy losers of society, and the purchasing restrictions, and the lack of education about sex, and the common ideas that sex is to kept as far away from young adults as possible, we have a culture which tries to create a massive division between materials specifically related to sex and those who could most benefit from such materials. Good one society, ya dumb arse.
How could young adults benefit from such materials? Quite simply, they explain the sexual functions of the human body far better than most high school textbooks do. I know my own sexual education classes in high school were pathetic. Also, they provide a source of sexual relief for people full of hormones and new feelings. Again, however, such relief is accomplished in private. And again, due to the reasons outlined in the previous paragraph, even educational delving into such materials is generally done in private. So we have further association between human reproduction and privacy.
Enough of pornography and sexual organs. Now on to other matters.
Do you think your girlfriend appreciates it if you gawk at a picture of a nigh-naked model and exclaim "Wow! Look at those tits!" Might she feel a tad upset by you paying such attention to a piece of paper instead of her? Might she feel that you place such high value on two lumps of fatty tissue that you are willing to compliment another woman in front of her?
I guess what I am getting around to is that the human body is, quite often at least, a very beautiful thing. But there is a time and a place for everything. Public display of human reproductive assets is rather contrary to human behaviours. Appreciation of another person in a way such as that described in the previous paragraph is counter to a healthy relationship with a girlfriend or boyfriend.
One last matter: sensibilities of fellow members of a society. I assume you all know what a society is. It is people functioning together through consensus. Let me give you an example of how a society can fall apart and become a bunch of separate individuals. There are ten members of a society. One of those members does not like chocolate. The other nine, although not requiring chocolate cake for any reason but presonal preference, personal gratification of an urge, decide to introduce chocolate cake as a regular part of the diet. Member 10 leaves. The society now has 9 members. One day, although not required, and again only to attain personal gratification, eight members decide country and western music must be played constantly so everyone can hear it. Member 9 hates C&W music, and leaves. This could go on and on. Unnecessary steps taken for the personal gratification of members, everyone within that society forces to accept those steps or leave. But majority rules, right? You can maintain a majority-rules policy in a dwindling population and be happy in your democracy, but the population will still dwindle if that democracy is used to satisfy things not necessary to the population.
Well. Enough rambling. Enjoy.
