This is always where it was going to go. They want control over how human bodies are allowed to be portrayed, not just nudity but in all aspects. Bluster about "protecting children" from pornography is just the wedge they use to open the door. - ThreadSky

tbskyen.com • 23 hours ago

This is always where it was going to go.

They want control over how human bodies are allowed to be portrayed, not just nudity but in all aspects.

Bluster about "protecting children" from pornography is just the wedge they use to open the door.

Reposted from Mike Stabile

The Federalist is coming for your artistic nudes. By which I mean the ones in museums.

"A number of Christian men I’ve known have expressed discomfort at viewing nudity in high art... these are honest men who care about honoring God and womanhood.

Comments

desh182.bsky.social•19 hours ago

I'm old enough to remember this Simpsons episode. Some people are just...

conniewulfwich.bsky.social•13 hours ago

I guess these Christians will never expose their children to the sacred Sistine Chapel then.

jaypanther.bsky.social•18 hours ago

hate to be whataboutist but: how's that egg price going, guys

sunkernplus.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Bad

kadegreene.bsky.social•21 hours ago

This is LITERALLY what the Simpsons "please won't somebody think of the children" clip was about. It was literally the idea that Michelangelo's David was too obscene and then mocking it. FFS

tbskyen.com•23 hours ago

The next step after this is to make it obscenity to portray a woman who "looks like a man" whether she's naked or not, (or men who "look like women") and then make it obscenity to make any kind of art that doesn't conform to their specific ideas of correctness and virtue.

sunkernplus.bsky.social•8 hours ago

If I may add, based on tumblr allowing users to report people for "feederism" (the feedists call it feedism, as a fat feedist myself) which leads to people simply reporting fat people who don't want to lose weight, which will lead to people stigmatizing people whose bodies don't fit to norms

tbskyen.com•23 hours ago

They will piss and whine and protest it's "to protect the children" or "defend traditional values" or "protect the sanctity of art" or fucking whatever. The reasoning is fungible, they'll pick whichever best lets them institute more censorship.

None of this is ever about "protecting children."

nikowo.gay•22 hours ago

Man. The kids don't even need protecting. When I was a kid we went to Italy and some of the art museums therein. There were paintings and sculptures of naked people, and I asked my parents what was up with that. They, in a cold panic, answered "It was hotter back then." I was satisfied with that.

announcerofgames.bsky.social•23 hours ago

The only art they want is propaganda that jerks off their god kings >_>

ashestoflames.bsky.social•23 hours ago

You just know that they are very serious about protecting children, because they are addressing the real threats (potentially seeing an underdressed human body), and not the fake ones (getting hit by a bullet during classes).

tbskyen.com•23 hours ago

The main thing that will "protect" children from porn is education about it, and wide cultural deconstruction of shame.

Shame and censorship and taboo creates vast voids of ignorance, and ignorance is how children get taken advantage of by adults.

willowwoodinc.bsky.social•12 hours ago

This is how we go back to women not being allowed to show anything above their ankles isn't it

lia-wings.bsky.social•1 hour ago

Jesus has something to say to these "Christian men" from the QRT: gouge your eyes out

jonnysilence.bsky.social•15 hours ago

Christian men, huh?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply