|Parisian nymph painted by Jules Lesebvre|
The first argument we discussed was parents prerogative. If they do not want their child to see nudity on display, they should have that right. What this means is that in his case, they were right to tell him to cover up the bits. A parent should get to chose if they want their child exposed and how they want their child to learn about sexuality.
The Second was that in the light of liberalism, if people stop acting so shamed by the human form and repressed their children less then there would be less in the way of bullying of gay children and those who have different body shapes. Later on in life as well, they would grow to be more comfortable in their own skin and would have a general increase in self confidence. If you think even remotely like me the second sounds awfully optimistic, however I do see the basis where this is coming from and while I don't think it will be in such a dramatic manner, I can see the benefits of letting children grow up aware of the human figure.
This led to our third great disagreement. The differences between male and female nudity. It is excepted a lot more commonly to see an image of a naked woman and call it art however if you even show full male in a movie you are looking at an R or X rating. Yet you can show full frontal of a woman? How does this work? Not well was my answer but we had to agree to disagree on this front.
Then, as it happens when talking about artistic nudes, we began to discuss, what is art? Is a picture of a naked woman with an innocent gaze holding a type of cloth in one hand to cover herself art? Or is it in poor taste? How about naked fae dancing under the moon? Oh my said we. We are roaming blindly through the realm of opinion. One mans art is another mans trash. So does it really matter if a man is forced to cover up an artistic nude? I think so.
What do you think?
Corset signing off.