On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote:
> I guess I've lived a limited life.
That wasn't exactly my point....
> Those should be categorized under adult for anything involving unclad
> bodies...Lump it into the Adult category, and then subdivide for
> "scantily-clad, nude, sex"
see, I don't think nude='adult' (or sexual -- actually, I saw one of my
favorite calvin and hobbes today -- the one where calvin is looking at
the movie listings and asks hobbes " 'contains adult situations'? What
are adult situations?" and hobbes answers with something like "oh,
work, paying bills, things like that" :) -- or objectification -- or
degradation, all of which, btw are different things)...
> That is a totally different issue dealing with societal norms. One thing
> at a time.
actually, I think that's where we started..I know it's where I started,
and the way I was reading ingrid's posts I figured she was coming from
roughly in the same place
> We're agreed on the "Disney rule" then? If it has a random
> nipple hanging out of a screenshot, that has adult content and should be
> filed accordingly...
no -- it's entirely possible for nudity not to be sexual, it's possible
for sexually explicit material not to be objectifying...I've said both
these things in previous posts...and I definetly thing the nudity=sex
thing in society has helped screw things up, but that's a totally
different topic for sure :)
Vinnie
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
