6 ms·
The suppression of the viewing of the human body in its natural form, especially in art, is one of the deepest perversions of society. It seems so intrinsically
by laser 8y ago
The suppression of the viewing of the human body in its natural form, especially in art, is one of the deepest perversions of society. It seems so intrinsically tied to the suppression and control of pleasure by institutions seeking dominance over human life. When you control access to the natural pleasures of life, you have control over the motivations and operations of that life. In prior times, when religions were the most powerful rulers of society, taboo ensured obedience to a system that enabled the powerful to rule, while as we so frequently see- violating the taboos beyond reason in far more perverse ways than unrestrained impulse motivates. Now that corporations have so strongly supplanted religion in the ruling of society, the suppression has moved from a place of religious principle, to one of purely pragmatic continuance of the dogma that maintains the status quo. Because why should Google have any philosophical position about the progression of society at all? It has under the conditions of the status quo become dominant, and so perhaps believes that its best interest lies in passively supporting the current system, no matter how fundamentally perverse it may be. But, this is a mistake. I know that Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as well as half of Google, run around naked in the Nevada desert every year, enjoying the beauty and freedom of the human body. So, to command the most powerful corporation in the world, and to know that our natural liberty is better than upholding millennia of repression, yet maintain it for a convenient profit without controversy, is if not evil, at least extraordinarily cowardly. If we want to transition from a society of repression and suffering to one of liberation and bliss, there are fewer more fundamental places to start than in the acceptance of our own natural bodies and the pleasurable practices in which they engage.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoI don't think sex is particularly messianic, but I also don't see why censoring and policing nominally adult content should be Google's business - literally or metaphorically. This is just one example from a growing list of questionable moral behaviour and outright abuse of monopoly power. The political reality is that Google has serious trust and credibility issues on many fronts. The more this kind of thing happens, the more likely they are to turn into antitrust issues.
- Fnoord 8y agoIt is also an example of the USA shoving down its morals to the rest of the world. Especially areas where partial nudity is accepted. One of the very first things in life a baby does is searching the nipple (which is darker than the rest of the breast) and sucking on it. Breast are very much part of nature and human life, yet we censor it as if it is something which shouldn't be seen. At the same time, we have no issues with all kind of violent games. Hello double standard! That you wanna have that in the USA is up to you Americans, but let me as European at least apply the norms of my country. You would not expect anything less as American! But yeah... Civ cultural victory, and all that... In EU there's already been complaints about Google only allowing their Play Store and hampering 3rd party stores, and Google lost that lawsuit.
- ttoinou 8y agobut let me as European at least apply the norms of my country Why do you want others to adapt to your culture ? Typically an european attitude if you ask me ;)
- josephg 8y agoI know you write this in jest, but the problem is that when Germans talk purely to other Germans on Facebook, they still have to do so according to American cultural standards. I can stage a protest on the street outside here in Melbourne and the social rules, expectations and conventions that I am subject to are Australian. But there’s no equivalent online - if I organise that protest with other Australians on FB or Twitter, the discussion is bizarrely at the whim of Californian corporate moral police. I love my iPhone to bits but the fact that I’m prevented by a US company from buying apps with sexual content is grating in the same way. Why is a nipple considered harmful to children while graphic displays of violence aren’t? I will never understand that norm. I wouldn’t have to grapple with it, except that my own phone enforces your nonsense moral code. It’s super aggravating.
- tokyodude 8y agoI agree with almost everything you wrote but... it's easy for me to see almost no connection between viewing violence and people commiting violent behavior. It's much easier for me to see a connection between sexy media and sexual behavior with consequences like teen pregnancy and STDs. I watch a violent movie yet I don't want to commit violent acts after. I watch a sexy movie and I do start to desire to have sex. it seems therefore reasonable to argue that violent media has no consequences but sexy media does. No idea in reality if sexy media has real world consequences.
- zamalek 8y agoI think the problem arises due to a very small portion of society that take it too far. The association between nudity and savagery has been grandfathered in. Even if the nudity is pure, people are explicitly or unintentionally afraid, and for good reason: we have children and death in porn. No reasonable person wants that, so we restrict the lot. ML probably could solve this specific problem, but we are too afraid to loosen the borders.
- badpun 8y agoHave you wondered why extremely successful cultures (Christian, Muslim) have/had rules against public nudity? I had, and my (layman) conclusions were that public nudity creates too much sexual tension, and that is bad for stability of society. Hence, societies just function better without public nudity.
- ytqaz 8y agoThat's what's causing the downfall of western society: forgetting that we owe everything to Christianity.
- badpun 8y agoThat’s not my point. My point is that there’s plenty of crappy/failed cultures (tribes in jungles etc.) that allowed public nudity, but not a single successful one did. Maybe there’s something to it.
- ytqaz 8y agoThe psychology of shame and decorum, probably.
- badpun 8y agoHow does "shame and decorum" translate to success? Not to mention the fact that most likely all cultures, successful or not, have shame, as it's a direct consequence of having morals (and when you cross them, you feel ashamed).
- hopler 8y agoYou are calling Germany a crappy failed jungle tribe?
- dang 8y agoReligious flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like that to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- AnonymousPlanet 8y agoI believe this to be one of the fundamental questions that will charaterize this new century: How is humankind going to cope with so much of humankind? How to deal with "someone's wrong on the internet"? There seem to be these possible answers: a) Everyone agrees to one narrative and moral standard. b) Everyone sticks to their little bit of the world and guards it with walls c) Live and let live and do not feed the trolls, cause haters will hate. So be it. Any one of a) or b) put to extremes wouldn't make a nice world to live in. It would either come with a global harmonization effort that will feel opressive. (This is what you are feeling in this instance) Or it would be a world comprised of iron curtains. With whatever harmonization and opression going on within each region. In any way, c) seems to me the most favorable outcome. But I have no idea how to get there since a) and b) appear to be the popular choices nowadays.
- wccrawford 8y agoThe problem with 'live and let live' is that you either choose to let people hurt other people, or you resolve to stop it. If you resolve to stop it, then you have to deal with that problem that everyone thinks different things are harmful. Some people honestly believe that porn is harmful to society and the individuals within it. It's not enough to just say "it's not harmful" because they believe it. And I can't even say that it's not. Promiscuous sex transmits diseases that absolutely do harm people, and there are psychological aspects that I'm not even knowledgeable enough to start giving an opinion on.
- chmod775 8y agoFirstly, porn != sex. There's no disease that can be transmitted through pornography that I know of. Secondly, the human race will die out pretty fast without sex. Food may kill you too, yet it's still needed so we can live™. So clearly this isn't an useful criterion.
- colordrops 8y agoSelf- or consensual "harm" should be excluded from anybody else's business. Most sexual activity fits under this category. It's not a difficult problem.
- hkai 8y agoBut you also understand their motivation, right? They don't want any boycott campaigns and protests from the loud minority, both inside the company and outside of it.
- supergirl 8y agoit is not really google’s fault. google is obeying american norms. if they were to allow naked pictures you can be sure some senators etc. will be outraged and start their pitchforks. the tragedy here is that google’s dominant position means all other countries have to follow american norms.
- chmod775 8y agoYou can find pornography easily with many Google products, their search app included. I hear no outcry.
- beginningguava 8y ago>progression of society how is reducing ourselves to animals running around naked with no impulse control "progress"? Is pleasure your only goal in life? The hard work and years of effort to make scientific breakthroughs sure as hell isn't fun, but the results are beneficial >If we want to transition from a society of repression and suffering to one of liberation and bliss "repression" is what makes society possible. If every one is free to do what they want and seek their own pleasure with no societal control, your only rule is might makes right. Pretty much every religious rule you're criticizing was for the benefit of the weak. The strongest can just crack your skull and do as they please without any rules holding them back
- itronitron 8y agoit's likely an extension of dominant males restricting reproductive access to other males. Interestingly this is not a feature of every species, Bonobo monkeys have a matriarchal society and go quite a bit beyond grooming in order to maintain social relationships within their group.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoSo you don't mind wading through some 'rape porn' while you try to find the next bus time? Because there's nary any real definition of 'art'. Your position is nice, but it's academic. We could even disagree on the academic points, but it would be futile: topless women and men with their dongle's hanging out are not going to be in Google Play, just like you won't see them on street signs or in shopping malls in the US, Germany, or most other places frankly. I don't buy any of the historical (i.e. religious) or national (i.e. USA) arguments: in the UK and Sweden, they are banning scantily clad women in ads on the basis of 'sexism' for god's sake. And even if they weren't, you're not going to find men with their dongle's in your Taxi ad anytime soon either - anywhere on earth basically. In reality, there will always have to be a line drawn somewhere. Tumblr became a porn haven, and for whatever reason, they didn't want that, so they moved it. If there were no recourse, then I think there'd be an issue here, but there are basically infinity recourses. All you hav to do is type a url into your browser to get your 'Heavy Metal' avatar.
- RedComet 8y agoThe suppression of pornography is one of the deepest perversions of society? I sincerely hope such views, which are actually themselves perverted, are not prevalent.