Guest watchful eye Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Has anyone seen the nude picture at the salon by Wilson Avenue. What is the town thinking by letting this picture be displayed. It is from floor to ceiling, full color of the backside of a man. I know quite a few children walk past it on their way home from school. It can be seen from across the street!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 If it is Al Santos leaving town it should be in lights!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KearnyNJ Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Children have never seen rear ends before? Is there anything dirty going on in this picture? I don't understand how it's offensive. Please, take a chill pill, miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FlagMann. Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Has anyone seen the nude picture at the salon by Wilson Avenue. What is the town thinking by letting this picture be displayed. It is from floor to ceiling, full color of the backside of a man. I know quite a few children walk past it on their way home from school. It can be seen from across the street!!! OK, Lets stop the BULL!!-- In all Due "respect" to the Mayor, and the Town council!! Did they know about that? (pictures) Is that all you got!!!!!!!! Here comes Newark, Trash, trash, trash, and more trash. FlagMann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senshi Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 These days kids are exposed to nude figues at a much younger age. All they have to do is watch TV. While the picture in question is rather surprising, I think its actually well done. It's very artistic. I would consider it art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KearnyNJ Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 These days kids are exposed to nude figues at a much younger age. All they have to do is watch TV. While the picture in question is rather surprising, I think its actually well done. It's very artistic. I would consider it art. Word. while i'm yet to see the picture, nobody has said it's sexually suggestive, so why is it wrong? ps: watchful eye, i think you have a sick mind. why? becuase you saw that butt and you thought "SEX! PROTECT THE CHILDREN!" It's not sex, it's just somebody's butt. What's wrong with that? We all have butts... If it was somebody's elbow, nobody would care. Don't make a big deal out of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a-man Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 The difference is the an elbow is an elbow. The butt is an entrance or exit ,no salida here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senshi Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 What difference does that make? A mouth is an entrance or an exit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 you really don't get it , do you? Stop looking at things in only one dimension. Try looking down the road a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senshi Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 I get it. I just don't see the big deal. I would understand if the painting was more questionable, but to me its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pube Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 nude art can be tasteful and it won't have a bad effect on a child. they'll see animated rear ends on Nickelodeon. there isn't any difference except one is humorous and immature, while the other is artistic and has depth to it. which would you rather have your kid appreciating? i'd rather know my child is expanding his horizons mentally than laughing at fart jokes. that may have been a bad analogy, but i felt it fit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyDuke.net Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 nude art can be tasteful and it won't have a bad effect on a child.they'll see animated rear ends on Nickelodeon. there isn't any difference except one is humorous and immature, while the other is artistic and has depth to it. which would you rather have your kid appreciating? i'd rather know my child is expanding his horizons mentally than laughing at fart jokes. that may have been a bad analogy, but i felt it fit Good point... Look at The Simpsons.... you see barts butt like in every other cartoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 you also will see the FCC cracking down on that very thing. It took the incident on the Superbowl to bring out the problem. They knew exactly what they were doing. Did you think that was art? Advertisers(also tv programming) look to shock to get your attention and they've been pushing the envelope toward indecency. Alot of people buy into it without realizing the consequences. The more acceptable it is the further they go to shock you so the problem gets worse. Their goal is to make money and apparently can't police themselves. Public nudity is against the law. It doesn't have to be a sexual act. You don't have the right to do what ever you want if it impedes on the rights of others. Would it be ok if your walking down the street with your child or loved one and some guy whips out his junk in front of you? Of course not. Laws are in place to keep society in control and safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senshi Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 you also will see the FCC cracking down on that very thing. It took the incident on the Superbowl to bring out the problem. They knew exactly what they were doing. Did you think that was art? Advertisers(also tv programming) look to shock to get your attention and they've been pushing the envelope toward indecency. Alot of people buy into it without realizing the consequences. The more acceptable it is the further they go to shock you so the problem gets worse. Their goal is to make money and apparently can't police themselves. Public nudity is against the law. It doesn't have to be a sexual act. You don't have the right to do what ever you want if it impedes on the rights of others. Would it be ok if your walking down the street with your child or loved one and some guy whips out his junk in front of you? Of course not. Laws are in place to keep society in control and safe. I see what you are saying. I don't know if the FCC was aware of what was to take place, correct me if I'm wrong. The problem at the superbowl was that the viewers where not aware of what was to take place. Most of the time when something indecent is about to take place the viewers are warned. This did not occur at the superbowl, a relatively family oriented show. This incident was nothing but a sad attempt to win some ratings and publicity which it did. Sadly they had to resort to this type of action. This was an advertisement. So are the hundred of billboards around the world with half naked models on them. It's made to get your attention. However they do not compare to art. At least not to me. Public nudity is not art either. Having someone "whip" it out is not art. I do realize that they are shocks of public nudity, as can be the mural in question, but to me its not the same, because one is to express an artists thoughts, feelings, etc. The other is a lame attempt to get you to buy something, or a deranged guy breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pube Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 you also will see the FCC cracking down on that very thing. It took the incident on the Superbowl to bring out the problem. They knew exactly what they were doing. Did you think that was art? Advertisers(also tv programming) look to shock to get your attention and they've been pushing the envelope toward indecency. Alot of people buy into it without realizing the consequences. The more acceptable it is the further they go to shock you so the problem gets worse. Their goal is to make money and apparently can't police themselves. Public nudity is against the law. It doesn't have to be a sexual act. You don't have the right to do what ever you want if it impedes on the rights of others. Would it be ok if your walking down the street with your child or loved one and some guy whips out his junk in front of you? Of course not. Laws are in place to keep society in control and safe. vulgar acts of nudity ARE NOT art. that's the only thing that needs to be known here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Wrong answer pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest taxpayer2 Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 I find this picture to be disrespectful. Those who think it is art should get a copy and hang it in there house, but personally I find it offensive, so do my neighbors, friends I have spoken to and family. This should not be allowed to be displayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pube Posted February 15, 2004 Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 you can't please everyone. you can't just censor everything you please. people need some kind of freedom to express themselves, even if it's in the public eye like that. nobody is right or wrong here since it's all opinion. but face it, there could be much more offensive things out there that kids are exposed to just on the schoolyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 15, 2004 Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 Zoom..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pube Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 Zoom..................... good observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KearnyNJ Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 this country is way too uptight. do you realize in other countries, there is nudity in shampoo commercials? everybody has to calm down. there's no sex in this picture, you people have to realize it's really nothing, just somebody's body part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senshi Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 this country is way too uptight. do you realize in other countries, there is nudity in shampoo commercials? everybody has to calm down. there's no sex in this picture, you people have to realize it's really nothing, just somebody's body part. Yea, most of our shampoo commercials are boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.