[lovarkitec]

i take my kids to pride every year and we have some great conversations about the ull nudity - they learn from it. I think those photos are awesome - this is what makes this city a safe place to live in......


From a proud gay man

Lark.........

 

[adma]

That said, I can't disagree that Pride's a bit of a "parental guidance" sort of event; sure it's more "mainstream" than ever, but it's foolish to go expecting an antiseptic Santy Claus Parade spectacle. So I wouldn't censor it; but if a token "adult situation" TV show-type warning is necessary to ward off the naive and lily-livered, go ahead.

Besides, face it. To a lot of spectators, it isn't that male nudity is obscene; it's that the male nudes that were on display were, to put it kindly, repulsive. Well, in the same sense that the sight of un-decapitated produce in ethnic butcher shops is repulsive. It isn't a matter of being racist or homophobic to have a "low tolerance level" for such sights; even I can get eye-averting queasy when faced with some of that ethnic-butcher stuff...

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

The "problem" is - Pride was never about being timid and mainstream at a philosophical level in the first place - it was a protest movement bent on challenging the norms of society. In a way, it's "unfortunate" (but also telling) that it has become so commercialized where the point is more or less lost.

Believe me, there is nothing more disheartening than to hear some twinky bitch complaining about "there aren't more hot men on the floats" this year and how it's all "old and ugly men". Makes you want to send those whiners to Saudi Arabia.

GB

 

[adma]

Yes, but it isn't just about old and ugly men. It's about old and ugly nude men. And face it, Pride or no Pride, they make a great yokking-point re spectators going green in the face as they pass by.

Not that I oppose their presence or anything...but to some, the spectacle of ugly old nude males at Hanlan's can be as nausea-inducing as the spectacle of dead seagulls or alewifes on the shore. Respect that. And respect that they've the right to avert their gaze if they can't take it...

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

And respect that they've the right to avert their gaze if they can't take it...

Actually, I would argue they have the duty to avert their gaze if they can't take it.

GB

 

[EnviroTO]

Is it the responsibility of ugly people to hide, burn victims to cover their faces, old people to stay indoors or get plastic surgery, or is it everyone elses responsibility to be more accepting? There are many attractive and non-attractive sights in this world but attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder and even in the eye of the beholder means nothing without something less attractive to compare it to.

 

[1Voltaire1]

You guys have no problem with small children seeing full frontal nudity?

No, as already alluded to numerous times by numerous forumers, a man's body(or female's body as the case may be) should not be an object of shame. Besides which, if someone does have a problem with a child seeing full frontal nudity, one would wonder why they are hanging out with their kids on Church St. at ten o'clock at night on Pride weekend(as in the picture at the start of this thread)?

The question that should be asked is: are cultural taboos sorrounding the human body, and the display thereof, constructive? What purpose do these taboos serve? I mean there is an obvious utility to wearing clothes in Canada. Such utility however does not adequately explain the revulsion that some claim to have with the sight of the human form.

Also, what are the pyscho-sexual implications of telling kids that your body is something you should hide? Neurosis? What harm would occur to a child should they see full frontal nudity? Will they be irreparably harmed by the notion of anatomical difference between men and women? I am hard pressed to conjure up ideas of what harm would actually occur to a child should they become aware of the compostion of the human body.

 

[THX YYZ]

I never liked the fact that people are allowed to walk around naked in the pride parade. They should have to pay a fine like everybody else. It hardly seems fair for the rest of us to be honest.

I have no problems with nudity, just the fact that they are allowed to be and I'm not! :rollin

 

[Ontarian1976]

I've never heard anyone (prior to this forum) argue that there is no age that is too young for a child to be exposed to such things. I think most will change their minds when they have children of their own, though one of you did say you have children.

Would you guys also be ok with flashers who wear trenchcoats? If full nudity in public isn't indecent exposure, how would you define indecent exposure?

 

[adma]

If we go too far with such arguments, we'll hit slippery slopes regarding such issues as "artistic expression", etc. Besides, today's kids are arguably exposed to worse within their own peer groups and through the mass media; in an age when 13-yr-old girls are (under)dressing (and according to tabloid journalism, behaving) like Paris Hilton, fat ugly old nude men at Pride is practically nothing. (But what do you want instead? Purdah?)

That said, I'd still advocate a token "PG-13" principle regarding Pride--but with the understanding that "protecting the kids" is really a smokescreen for "protecting the squeamish", which is a category that transcends age. And maybe we need such smokescreens; ultimately, it's only a matter of being responsible, but there's a leeway of definition as to what "responsible" is, and we must allow for that.

So yes, if I were a parent, I wouldn't be so blithe about Pride; yet my advice to the unprepared young'uns might be more in the way of disclaimers than outright prevention. It's like serving liquor at formal occasions; if one takes the European approach, the kids are free to try, but within limits, and if it disagrees with them, they have right of refusal. (And I'd rather be a "European" parent than a SUV-driving pasty white suburban hockey dad in the outer 905, for what it's worth.)

It's like the Spanish bullring; you must be prepared for what may be coming, period, regardless of whatever age you may be...

 

[clam dude]

You guys have no problem with small children seeing full frontal nudity? Wow

Remember that most other animals on this planet walk around completely naked all the time. Please give me an example of a concrete problem with children seeing full frontal nudity, as supposed to something as subjective as "morals."

 

[EnviroTO]

I don't think full nudity makes something an indecent exposure... I think sexual motives make something indecent exposure. A guy walking down the street nude minding his own business is OK by me, unless he has a woody, is touching himself or others in a sexual way, or is getting some sort of sexual satisfaction in doing so. A guy in a trenchcoat flashing is indecent exposure in my mind because the motives are to get some sort of sexual satisfaction from doing so. A fraternity initiation of streaking across campus isn't "indecent" in my mind since it is more about fear of being caught, fear of being seen, and really isn't about getting sexual satisfaction, but heading over to the female dorm and flashing them would be. The same thing would be true for women... walking down the street nude is OK, bending over in front of guys and giving them a look for the purpose of sexual suggestion is not.

Basically if you keep sexual suggestion and sexual harrassment out of the picture then there is nothing wrong with nudity. If you can't keep yourself from thinking sexual thoughts then keep your pants on. Actually, when you think about it, having clothing on does nothing to prevent actions which are sexually suggestive and indecent. A guy grabbing his crotch for all to see, making a sexual comment to someone who doesn't want to hear it, or purposely rubbing against another person for sexual satisfaction is inappropriate regardless of whether or not he has clothes on.

I think a nude beach is probably fine for kids if their parents are comfortable in that environment, but a porno flick is not since the story lines have nothing to do with normal relationships and often have more to do with bad relationships, cheating, and taking advantage of people. They teach sex eduction in Grade 4 or 5... so if the public school system thinks they are ready to know what sex is, then they are probably fine seeing naked bodies. Kids are going to find out about sex and nudity, they can see themselves in the mirror... I think it is better that a parents (or teachers) be the ones to explain sex and nudity to kids so that they don't find out from poor sources of information and aren't rushed into relationships they don't want to have.

Personally, I wouldn't rush to expose my children to nudity and I personally am not fully comfortable walking around nude, but if they see nudity I think my job as a parent it to normalize it and not freak out. When my son or daughter asks about sex or nudity I will answer with only facts and guidance rather than far fetched stork stories. Personally I don't think I would take my kids to a Pride parade either because the parade doesn't interest me personally and it isn't targeted at the kids. However, if I was taking the kids to Eatons Centre and the parade was on and they wanted to see it then I wouldn't get too worked up about them seeing a nude person.

 

[Ontarian1976]

>>Please give me an example of a concrete problem with children seeing full frontal nudity, as supposed to something as subjective as "morals." <<

I'm just saying there is such thing as "too young" for certain things, IMO. Do you/will you allow your young children to see such things?

 

[adma]

EnviroTO: I guess one thing at issue in this thread is that even if no literal "sexual suggestion" takes place, the whole Pride ethos is arguably one of "sexual suggestion". So in this context, ugly old fat nude guys doing nothing but marching carry a "loaded" message in spite of themselves.

Ontarian1976: I'd be open to my kids watching the Simpsons, even Family Guy, et al, "adult situations" and all. One does not need to be excessively proscriptive to raise ones kids to be street-smart, media-aware, culturally-aware, et al--in fact, I'd argue that to be excessively proscriptive will lead to greater sitting-duck naivete on their part, not lesser. IOW I'll betcha that your kids are more likely to shock you with "aberrant" behaviour than ours, simply because you're setting up a stage for them to shock you from...

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

EnviroTO: I guess one thing at issue in this thread is that even if no literal "sexual suggestion" takes place, the whole Pride ethos is arguably one of "sexual suggestion". So in this context, ugly old fat nude guys doing nothing but marching carry a "loaded" message in spite of themselves.

Heck, walk around the street and one can see "loaded" messages, albeit gift-wrapped, everywhere you care to look. Sexual suggestion is hardly something exclusive to Pride, if the summer clevage season is any sign.

In fact, I would hazard to guess it isn't so much so someone is showing their willy, but the fact that some old man is doing it. You know we have this great societal taboo against discussion of seniors sexuality.

GB