Hang on a second, let's get something straight here. You wrote this:
... in support of your position. But then you essentially admit that it's irrelevant with this:
JJM pointed out the flaw in this argument with this:
... which you seemed to acknowledge:
So, please, for the record, acknowledge that citing an isolated exception that bucks a trend does not invalidate the trend, AND THEN PLEASE STOP DOING IT!
No.
Because I'm being realistic. Having the government decide that since the "potential risk" outweighs the knowledge and trust of adults in how to bring up their children, then the government would have to ban everything.
For example: you yourself admitted to walking around nude in front of your children. You yourself saw admitted that they were uncomfortable. Now because of that one occurrence, should the government now declare that no parents should be nude in their own house because of the "potential risk" of harm it may cause?
Another example: If a child plays a sport and fails at scoring the winning goal, and consequently gets ridiculed by his friends and maybe some adults, and gets so depressed over it that he starts failing in school, etc, by your logic, there is a evidence of a "potential risk" of harm to the child and therefore playing sports should be banned.
Or if the child gets physically injured so that that child cannot use her or his legs, or some other life-changing injury, then there is another example of "potential risk" of harm and
by your logic the government should step in and ban the sport without any regard of the child's desire to play or any regard to the parent's knowledge of the child to being able to handle it.
So, no, I will not. My way idea of trusting the parents may not be most fool-proof way, but it's the best and the most realistic.
I know exactly what you're saying, but parents DO NOT necessarily know their kids very well from a psychological perspective. Jeez, one of my sons is 13 and if you gave me a penny for his thoughts, especially those that are bothering him, I'd be a rich man!
Yet you know other people's children will enough to ban nude modeling for everyone.
I can't recall whether you've disclosed whether you're a parent or not, but if you are and you think you "know" your kid(s) well enough to decide for them whether posing nude for art's sake is good or bad for them you are woefully misguided.
Do you see your own statement? You don't even recall if I am a parent or not, and even with that, you know for a fact that if I am a parent or not, my children wouldn't like posing nude.
Do you realize how daft that sounds?
The point is if you don't know the thoughts of your own children, how the hell do you know the personalities of children you don't know?
Would you apply the same rationale when diagnosing a severely sick child, or would you seek expert medical attention? Why would you invariably defer to an expert on matters of physical wellbeing but when it comes to psychological wellbeing default to "I'm saying that it's a parent's final decision and responsibility".
Apples and oranges. You are comparing medical issues to knowing a child's personality. A good parent knows when a child is sick and seeks help from a doctor. A good parent also knows when a child is faking to get out of school for the day.
And if you've ever been to a psychologist, the first thing they do is ask questions to find out the personality of the person they are dealing with. They don't assume that everyone is the same, nor do they assume that a treatment that works for most works for all. And a treatment that doesn't work for everyone may work for this particular patient.
By the way, a medical doctor works like that too: a treatment that works for most does not mean it works for all, and a treatment that doesn't work for everyone may work for this particular patient.
And in both cases, there's "potential risk" of harm.
A parent may not be an expert in psychology nor medicine, but they should be an expert in knowing the personalities of their own children.
For example, you have children. Do all your children enjoy the same things? Is one child comfortable doing a task and another isn't? Does one child like to be alone in their spare time, while the other likes to be out and with friends? Do you force all your children into the same activities that guaranteed to be "potentially risk" free? Do you trust someone else who doesn't know you child at all to instantly know what's best for them better than you do?
I did. If you can't understand it's not my problem.
"Figure it out" being the operative words!
You're right there. Let's see if you can.
So it doesn't necessarily concern erotica or sexual arousal, then. I'm glad we've cleared that up!
Where in the definition does it say it doesn't necessarily concern sexual arousal?
And where is your definition or is this another dodge?
Very nice art. But again, you made an attempt to dodge the question. You have not answered it. You still haven't as of the post I'm up to now. So let's see if you actually answer the question:
If the movie "Superman" isn't porn and isn't a documentary and isn't art, what is it?
I guess my English isn't all that great either..