Actions over free expression cast Norfolk in provincial light

I applaud your insight, strength of character & commitment to living within the tenets of your faith. In engaging & educating your children in a thoughtful & pricipled manner, you are giving them the appropriate tools & action plans so that they feel no need to participate in the behaviors & mores that are outside the realms of your faith. When those children grow to adulthood, their presence in society will begin to elevate society's behavioral & moral expectations.

Your choice of approach effects a more positive change towards the 'lack of civility' in our society, than those who pontificate that society is "wrong" & must submit itself to being censured & censored.

I stand by my previous comment about choice: "Our choice then, is limited to how we react as individuals, to the values & behaviors which discomfit us. We are still free to act as thoughtful, principled & honorable beings, if w

I too belong to a conservative church. I have great kids who are respectful, polite, intelligent, active in the church, and excellent scholars and athletes. We eschew several radio stations because of crude lyrics, are picky about the movies they watch, and the people with whom they associate.

However, I did't find anything offensive about the art in question and would not have a problem with my daughters seeing it or other portrayals of the human body in an artistic form. I think we are all smart enough to differentiate between art and porn; appropriatee and inappropriate.

I do not apologize for my distaste with how *crude* our society has gotten. And, yes, my teenager has *slowly*, while talking and dialoging with his parents, become aware of that very crudity around us. He knows how to identify it and he knows that he can choose an alternative to it. I think that comforts me the most. That my son knows an alternative exists and will often choose it over today's "cool" mores. Yes, we may seem "Mayberry" (along with the people of all races who surround us at our conservative church). Laugh at us, if that is the price we pay to not subscribe to "lowest common denominator" tactics in our society. Cheers, MGM

Could it be, that Mar Sch7 & the good Dr. Tabor are advocates for a return to that kindest, gentlest, "Golden Age of America," the 1950's?

When erudite middle class American parents like Ozzie & Harriet Nelson, and Ward & June Cleaver, always knew best. And children were well mannered & always answered their elders with a polite ‘yes Sir’ or ‘no Ma’am.’ Where youngsters were eager to occupy themselves with adult supervised, structured activities, like Boy Scouts or Girl Guides, Music Lessons, Little League, 4-H Club & Summer Camp. When Sundays were always observed as family time, & Sunday morning Church services were dutifully attended, followed by Bible School, & then straight back home to help Mom prepare Sunday Dinner.

No rampant crime, no illicit drugs, no gangs, no assaults or shootings, no wanton, brazen, sexual images to subvert the clean, upstanding, moral fiber & chastity of our youth... Well... Maybe in the ‘bigger cities,’ like New York, or Boston, or Los Angeles, but certainly not here in Mayberry!!!

Now just one minute. By some standards I'm an elder, but I don't wear a diaper. As far as whining about this piece of art that someone thinks is bad for their children, then perisonally I think they are crazy. If you can't talk to your children about art and or breast, they you have a problem, and your children will grow up with bigger problems. Stop the censorship, and stop the whining.

Kerry has it right IMO. The area is full of scolds and diaper-wearing, arrogant, cowardly elderly who behave like the common scolds of old. These elderly have nothing better to do in retirement that to nick pick at there neighbors for any and all perceived transgressions as well as scream foul if any 19th century-era moral or ethic has been violated. In my community I have several dozen retiree scolds who scream for an attorney the instant that some dog owner doesn't pick up the poop, some young child innocently tosses a few peices of popcorn to a neghborhood duck, or if someone parks on 'their' side of the street. How childish. Instead of talking to the neighbor, they get the police, hire an attorney, and gossip the entire time slandering people's reputation without cause. I've heard it said that life comes back full circle. The elderly these days are returning to their own childhood personalities. Probably as a result of living longer these days, I guess.

I said: "I'm truly sorry that a breast is too much for some to handle...or if it's uncomfortable for some to explain to a child just what a breast is. Or what art is. Sorry that some are so repressed as to find the human body offensive."

I stand by that statement. Some people are uncomfortable seeing a breast, so they complain and it gets covered up. Some people would rather not explain to the child what it is they are looking at. Some people actually do believe that the human body is offensive and should always be covered. Do you dispute this?

Sarcasm aside, in my opinion this perfectly decsribes the kind of repressed person that would complain about seeing a boob in a painting.

jmo

This is about exposed breasts in a work of art. Someone was offended because little johnny (julie?) saw a boob. Boobs were covered. Prude wins. Gallery owner loses. Mall owner loses. General public loses.

When did this become about music? Foul language? Why are you changing the subject? What other reason would you object to the artistic interpretation of a breast if it didn't offend you?

BTW, lots of art offends me. Maplethorpe comes to mind. But I'd never suggest censoring art. Ever.

And to the prophet - God created us in His image - nothing at all to be embarrassed about.

Sarcastic? Yep, I can be that way. But childish? I'll defer that label to the people that think boobs are bad.

jmo

For Pete sakes, if you can't discuss art with your child then you and your child are in big trouble.

Extremes and exaggerations again...

This was about exposing YOUNGSTERS to excessive foul-mouth language and sexually explicit advertisements, etc. I probably would not have been offended at the art itself, just bothered that things like that are showing up more and more everywhere we turn. It is beginning to seem that nowhere is "safe" to take the kids - even city-sponsored events and malls.

A remark was made: "I'm truly sorry that a breast is too much for some to handle...or if it's uncomfortable for some to explain to a child just what a breast is. Or what art is. Sorry that some are so repressed as to find the human body offensive."

That is total exaggeration and unfounded... And is to the extreme. And in my personal case, ridiculous. It also sounds like a sarcastic child.

Can't even have an intelligent conversation with comments like that. Just doesn't work.

Right there with you, Prophelicious...

1 Corinthians 6:12 (The Message)
"Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean that it's spiritually appropriate. If I went around doing whatever I thought I could get by with, I'd be a slave to my whims."

1 Corinthians 6:12 (Contemporary English Version)
"Some of you say, "We can do anything we want to." But I tell you that not everything is good for us. So I refuse to let anything have power over me."

1 Corinthians 6:12 (New Living Translation)
"You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything."

Sorry, compromise doesn't seem to be an option for people that think that all nudity is offensive and we must protect our children from it at all costs.

My point from yesterday was sarcastic but valid: The only way to protect everyone is to cater to the whims of only the most highly offended. If the offending art is moved but still visible through the window, is it not still offensive?

I'm truly sorry that a breast is too much for some to handle...or if it's uncomfortable for some to explain to a child just what a breast is. Or what art is. Sorry that some are so repressed as to find the human body offensive.

That statement can certainly be turned around. "So MY sensibilities are not respected because YOURS are different??" Right back atcha.
Too late - I was already turning the phrase of a previous poster who said I should respect others sensibilities - apparently while sacrificing my own.

Be careful next time you go to the mall. I hear that there's a store there that has mannequins wearing thongs - in the window. Cover your eyes.

jmo

We were also talking about how we would NOT expect vulgar language from someone who was paid for by the city... Regardless of what anyone says, or how "used to" the sound of it everyone is becoming because of hearing it used so many places so often, the F-word is profane. And not suitable around younger children...

"So, my sensibilities are not worthy of respect because someone else has a different set?"

That statement can certainly be turned around. "So MY sensibilities are not respected because YOURS are different??" Right back atcha.

"The only way to safely do so is to block all access to art galleries, museums, book stores, etc. Shutter the windows and drape the doors"

We were talking about things being put out in public that many consider indecent or unsuitable-at least for the children. It would have not been NEARLY as big a deal if the painting had just been hung inside the store (even if visible from the window) rather than shown out in the public walkway. This was a public mall... We SHOULD be able to take our kids there (or any public place) without having unsuitable stuff shoved down our throats.

Everyone seems to be expressing extremes. Either/Or. How about compromise? Somewhere in the middle? AND? How about respect and consideration from BOTH sides?

Some of you act like a crime was committed by the gallery, but it was not. Your kids watch TV, you probably have magazines lying around and everyhing these days has a sexual under-tone. Your kids will be just fine, but that depends on you. Your conversations, honesty, and openness to listening will allow your kids to grown up as responsible adults. I'll bet some of you don't even talk about sex education to your own children. I think the whining has gotten out of control.

I agree. A lot of stuff they show on T.V. crosses the line. My kids don't watch T.V. very often as they're outside playing football & basketball and getting exercise. However, when they do watch T.V. they watch Nickelodeon, Disney, or things I record for them. As far as Soap Operas, I like General Hospital. I record it and watch it while my kids are outside playing.

What I want least of all is more laws dictating such things.

If common courtesy and respect won't deal with the conflict, the marketplace will. Waterside is already struggling. Can the other merchants there afford for the gallery to drive sensitive families away? The last thing Waterside needs is a family-unfriendly reputation.

Or maybe not. Perhaps they want Waterside to be an adults-only venue. There is room for both sorts of malls, I guess.

Remember that I never advocating banning anything. I am asserting that respect for the feelings of others avoids bringing government into the matter.

But respect the sensibilities of whom? The only way to safely do so is to block all access to art galleries, museums, book stores, etc. Shutter the windows and drape the doors. Then provide a list of potentially offensive contents at the entrance (be careful not to use offensive language, though).

So, my sensibilities are not worthy of respect because someone else has a different set? What if the art in question had been in the back of the gallery, but visible through the door or window? What if the gallery had been displaying Michelangelo's David? Where does it end?

The gallery wasn't displaying porn, and in fact wasn't breaking the law. I don't think that the gallery owner is the one being disrespectful in this case.

Respectfully,
jmo

It may well come to strict definitions of what can be displayed in the public view. But the results of such laws can lead to a lot of nitpicking.

As a Libertarian, I would much prefer the gallery owners simply show some respect for the sensibilities of those with whom they disagree. If they decline to do so, then you might well see offended families avoid Waterside altogether.

Imagine the consequences that could bring. What if parents who object to such displays simply wrote letters of complaint expressing their intention to not patronize Waterside so long as there was no policy against such displays, and sent them the the gallery's neighbors?

A lot can be accomplished without bringing the heavy hand of government to bear.

Doc said "People have a reasonable expectation that public places will be suitable for children."

That's why it has to be codified. What I deem suitable (nude art, for example) is obviously not deemed suitable by other parents. Simply legislate what my child can see and then I wont have to make those choices for myself. Much easier than explaining to a child what it is that he/she is looking at.

jmo

To Vince W., I question your notion of making choices. First, I am not sure I would define our society as pluarilistic, liberal, and democratic, and I certainly did not make a choice to live in this society. It just happened. For most of us, it just happened.

I personally think Kerry's editorial is about a certain type of troublemaker. To complain about a sexually benign breast on an abstract work of art in a store window constitutes being a troublemaker, in my opinion, where a less than well adjusted individual is striking back in a manner consistent with an ego defense. It is not unlike the random antisocial acts of a troubled teenager. It is petty, spiteful complaining and nothing more, and the only difference between such behavior, and criminal behavior, is that it is legal.

"One of the unfortunate trade-offs of living in a pluralistic, liberal, democratic society, is that we lose the ability to mold & tailor that society to conform to a singular set of values & behavioral mores."

Who is going to establish those singular set of values & behavioral mores? You? What happens when other don't agree with you and want their singular set of values & behavioral mores established?

One of the unfortunate trade-offs of living in a pluralistic, liberal, democratic society, is that we lose the ability to mold & tailor that society to conform to a singular set of values & behavioral mores.

If we entertain the notion that all citizens should be free to behave as they would chose in their own personal space, but must also behave to a uniform set of standards in our shared public space, then we automaticaly become a less free society.

Since we have already made the choice to live in a pluralistic, liberal, democratic society, we have accepted accepted that trade-off.

Our choice then, is limited to how we react as individuals, to the values & behaviors which discomfit us. We are still free to act as thoughtful, principled & honorable beings, if we so choose.

Well said! That's what I've been trying to say all along. I would appreciate having a CHOICE whether to expose my kids to whatever's around the corner, and not have it thrust on me in unsuspected places (like a mall)!

If so then they ae exposed to all kinds of ads that I find offensive, but I don't complain about, because truth be know, some ads are better than the programs. I love the Geico commercial!. Take a good look at the next Victoria Secret ad. Take a look at Hardee's ad, the one about eating the "cheese paper" in particular. I wonder how upset you folk get when your kids sit in front of a TV for hours on end. Are your kids with you when you watch the "soapes"? Have mercy, there is more sex on those shows then just about any other. Do you also complain about that, or are you just offended, by what offends YOU? How much censorship do you want? Let's see a show of hands!

The point that it seems I am having trouble getting across is that though neither of you consciously wants to tell other parents how to raise their children, the choice, in a small way, has been made for them by the gallery owners' decision to display nude art IN A PUBLIC PLACE.

People have a reasonable expectation that public places will be suitable for children, including children of parents who do not want them exposed to nude art.

I am not calling for legal restrictions, I am simply pointing out that it is rude and disrespectful to violate those reasonable expectations of a PG view in a public place without warning. By voluntarily respecting the sensibilities of parents who chose to limit what their children see, we reduce the need for laws making such restrictions mandatory.

I have no intention of telling anyone how to raise their kids. I have been a teacher for many years and have mentored teenagers for several years. I was simply passing along what I have observed and learned from the kids that I have worked with.

We need to have a serious PR campaign to educate the public about what is and is-not art. We are not fit to judge on our own. Someone must judge on our behalf, then tell us what is acceptable.

So, I recommend that we invite all those that are offended by bare breasts in art galleries, by naked sculptures at art competitions, by shirtless boys in clothing ads, by underwear models in Wal-Mart fliers, etc. All of these people that know what is best for the rest of us should assemble and dictate the "Hampton Roads Rules of Good Taste and Common Courtesy." Once published all must abide.

We could even have the event catered. I know where we can get a liquor luge...

jmo

I totally agree!!! Teaching Theories as if it were fact, without at least mentioning possible alternatives (and that there ARE other thoughts about creation/evolution), really IS Deception. Just not right.