Evidence for God from Science

This is taken from the Music thread.

Thoughts?

Some things are inappropriate, even when they're called "art".

Just like Cathy Griffin holding the bloody head of Donald Trump, calling something "art" does not make it ok.

RickD wrote:Some things are inappropriate, even when they're called "art".

Just like Cathy Griffin holding the bloody head of Donald Trump, calling something "art" does not make it ok.

What makes this vid sexual to you?

FYI,

I had my wife watch the video with me, and I simply asked her what she thought.

These are her comments...

"This is stupid."

"Is that a child?"

"How old is she?"

RickD wrote:FYI,

I had my wife watch the video with me, and I simply asked her what she thought.

These are her comments...

"This is stupid."

"Is that a child?"

"How old is she?"

Thats like listening to a movie in a foreign language and saying its stupid merely cos you cant understand what they are saying

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:Some things are inappropriate, even when they're called "art".

Just like Cathy Griffin holding the bloody head of Donald Trump, calling something "art" does not make it ok.

What makes this vid sexual to you?

I'm not sure I'd call it sexual, per se.

Like I said before, a 30 year old man in nude underwear, dancing with a prepubescent girl in a nude leotard, is inappropriate, at the very least.

I will admit, in my culture, grown men simulating naked dancing with prepubescent girls, is inappropriate.

Call me old fashioned.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:Some things are inappropriate, even when they're called "art".

Just like Cathy Griffin holding the bloody head of Donald Trump, calling something "art" does not make it ok.

What makes this vid sexual to you?

I'm not sure I'd call it sexual, per se.

Like I said before, a 30 year old man in nude underwear, dancing with a prepubescent girl in a nude leotard, is inappropriate, at the very least.

I will admit, in my culture, grown men simulating naked dancing with prepubescent girls, is inappropriate.

Call me old fashioned.

Its not nude underwear as much as the colour nude.

The colour is part of the art representing vulnerability

Theres not necessarily anything wrong with an adult dancing with a child. Depends on the intent.

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:Some things are inappropriate, even when they're called "art".

Just like Cathy Griffin holding the bloody head of Donald Trump, calling something "art" does not make it ok.

What makes this vid sexual to you?

I'm not sure I'd call it sexual, per se.

Like I said before, a 30 year old man in nude underwear, dancing with a prepubescent girl in a nude leotard, is inappropriate, at the very least.

I will admit, in my culture, grown men simulating naked dancing with prepubescent girls, is inappropriate.

Call me old fashioned.

Its not nude underwear as much as the colour nude.

The colour is part of the art representing vulnerability

Theres not necessarily anything wrong with an adult dancing with a child. Depends on the intent.

And the nude underwear represents nakedness, which may represent vulnerability. But nakedness with a prepubescent girl, also represents pedophelia.

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:FYI,

I had my wife watch the video with me, and I simply asked her what she thought.

These are her comments...

"This is stupid."

"Is that a child?"

"How old is she?"

Thats like listening to a movie in a foreign language and saying its stupid merely cos you cant understand what they are saying

What about the fact that my wife picked up on the girl being so young? Doesn't that tell you something?

Look, if you replace the 12 year old girl, with a 25 year old woman, the issue would probably be how bad Shia Labeouf dances. And people would be calling it, "sensual".

Ever hear of Bacha Bazi? In Afghanistan, young boys dress up as women, and perform for men. Some call that art, too.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:Some things are inappropriate, even when they're called "art".

Just like Cathy Griffin holding the bloody head of Donald Trump, calling something "art" does not make it ok.

What makes this vid sexual to you?

I'm not sure I'd call it sexual, per se.

Like I said before, a 30 year old man in nude underwear, dancing with a prepubescent girl in a nude leotard, is inappropriate, at the very least.

I will admit, in my culture, grown men simulating naked dancing with prepubescent girls, is inappropriate.

Call me old fashioned.

Its not nude underwear as much as the colour nude.

The colour is part of the art representing vulnerability

Theres not necessarily anything wrong with an adult dancing with a child. Depends on the intent.

And the nude underwear represents nakedness, which may represent vulnerability. But nakedness with a prepubescent girl, also represents pedophelia.

The nakedness here that is represented is emotional not physical in my opinion.

And the way the two people are interacting is nothing like an adult overpowering a child. If anything, the child has the upper hand

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:FYI,

I had my wife watch the video with me, and I simply asked her what she thought.

These are her comments...

"This is stupid."

"Is that a child?"

"How old is she?"

Thats like listening to a movie in a foreign language and saying its stupid merely cos you cant understand what they are saying

What about the fact that my wife picked up on the girl being so young? Doesn't that tell you something?

Look, if you replace the 12 year old girl, with a 25 year old woman, the issue would probably be how bad Shia Labeouf dances. And people would be calling it, "sensual".

Ever hear of Bacha Bazi? In Afghanistan, young boys dress up as women, and perform for men. Some call that art, too.

Im not saying its ok because its art. I am saying I think its ok and I also think its art/expression.

Slapping a label on something obviously doesnt necessarily make it good.

artful expression can be dodgy... its not always either or

What do you think of this Ness?


https://youtu.be/dPI-mRFEIH0

A relative thought it was funny and "innocent" enough, to put on with my kids in the room.

Kurieuo wrote:What do you think of this Ness?


https://youtu.be/dPI-mRFEIH0

A relative thought it was funny and "innocent" enough, to put on with my kids in the room.

What do I think? Sex sells... even camouflaged with food.

Bet alot of guys and girls out there wouldnt mind kneading her buns

Well, dough girl really doesn't appeal to me in the slightest so I guess I've lost touch with stupid social normalities. All I saw was self-aggrandisement and certain worldviews and philosophical underpinnings from which there is nothing good or constructive.

I guess you have boys and that'd make the situation a little different. Nonetheless, if your sister played such to your boys, and other smutty pop clips to them, would you care much?