Porn is ok in Public Library in NJ

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
this is not just any porn nor is it gay porn this is someone depiction of what may have went on but not necessarily something that happened all the time and to every slave during the 1800's prior to the Civil War.

www.foxnews.com...

Tell me should this type of thing whether true or not be displayed in a public library?

No I don't care who the artist is or their feeling of what should be shown. You can find this on any porn site today and there ain't no slaves no mo.

I myself feel that this NJ library should be boycotted and protested against until they take the filth off their walls.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Uh, well I can see why they would want to preserve it but there are better venues for that. I'm sure there are some sex museums that would be quite willing to pay for that picture.

Either way, the Library isn't the place for that sort of thing.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


It's a non-realistic drawing and the sex is implied not shown.

I wouldn't call it "filth" but I wouldn't say it's appropriate for a library children will be entering.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
It's part of human nature, people need to grow up.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I download all my porn there then take it home and watch it since I am on 14.4kbps dial up from 1991



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


It is moronic to call this piece "porn". No phallus is shown nor are any other gender-specific anatomy. The point is a depiction of 20th century KKK influences on black women in the Jim Crow era. I think a library is one of the only decent places to show a painting like this. Did you go there to learn or not?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I was going to say it's a bit hard to judge if it really is porn without seeing the picture in question. Simply showing a sex act doesn't make something porn otherwise they wouldn't show animals doing it in nature shows.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Personally, I think art with nudity and especially sexual content to it have a limited number of places that really work. Galleries and Collections of course.... Cat houses... Rather tacky bars.. that sort of thing. Galleries covers the high end stuff, but the rest? Well, the library just isn't the venue in my opinion.

That's the place above all others that needs to be open and welcoming to EVERYONE as much as it's possible to be.

Limiting books? Absolutely not...and someone has to put the effort into looking for and finding sexual content books in libraries. Art on the wall that can't be avoided? Well, that's hardly the way to be universally welcoming, eh? I mean who wants their kids seeing that and regardless of context?? (and saying a library patron or family just has to avoid a whole room of a public library to avoid being offended isn't reasonable either)

The library really isn't the spot for pushing the envelope in racy and provocative art outside of special showings in the bigger ones, IMO.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Art on the wall that can't be avoided? Well, that's hardly the way to be universally welcoming, eh?


That's the distinction I think needs to be addressed. It is in an appropriate place since libraries are for history and learning but... yeah, maybe there's a more tactful way to display it.

Really, though, it's not as bad as the article makes it sound. It's actually quite a moving piece.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I was going to say it's a bit hard to judge if it really is porn without seeing the picture in question. Simply showing a sex act doesn't make something porn otherwise they wouldn't show animals doing it in nature shows.


blog.nj.com...

i don`t see what it has to do with slavery, it just looks like interracial sex.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


You don't see the hooded figures representing the KKK?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


It is moronic to call this piece "porn". No phallus is shown nor are any other gender-specific anatomy. The point is a depiction of 20th century KKK influences on black women in the Jim Crow era. I think a library is one of the only decent places to show a painting like this. Did you go there to learn or not?


My family were engendered servants from England in the 1500's slavery was never limited to white. The same thing happened to whites so it is not a racial thing.

It is not so much that it is fleshy porn but never the less everyone knows what it is they are doing and it is not something Kids need to see ion a public library. they will learn about the birds and bees as it is already no need to force them to grow any faster than necessary.

edit on 20-1-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
If they take it down ppl will think they're racist trying to cover up the deplorable actions of white men



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GokuVsSuperman0
If they take it down ppl will think they're racist trying to cover up the deplorable actions of white men


sorry to say but you are probably right.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
People really need to get a grip, the smallest thing can upset anyone these days
blog.nj.com...
No porn here... move along

Does this also upset you?

my stick figure is not wearing clothes



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0nZ
People really need to get a grip, the smallest thing can upset anyone these days
blog.nj.com...
No porn here... move along

Does this also upset you?

my stick figure is not wearing clothes


oh my eyes put some clothes on dude that's disgusting!

Implied or otherwise it is sexual immorality if the slave owner was married.

Implied or otherwise it promotes sexual encounters to the young.

Implied or otherwise the art in question promotes a view that was not limited to one race.

Implied or otherwise sexual art should not be placed in public. Our kids will learn what make the world go round sooner or later but let them be kids as long as possible and stop forcing on them sexual impropriety and immorality until they are of age to drink. because we all know that drunkenness and nakedness go hand in hand.

unless they are into bathsalts then it is eating flesh and nakedness.


edit on 20-1-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GokuVsSuperman0
If they take it down ppl will think they're racist trying to cover up the deplorable actions of white men

I was thinking that same thing before coming back to find you'd put it into words. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't now.

A little common sense and discretion shown before it went up at all would have been the best solution I think.

I also got to thinking and there WAS a Museum/Library I recall being to in Burbank/Glendale, Ca when I was a kid. They had some racy stuff on display and obviously, it made an impression if I still recall such a trivial thing 30 years later. What made it worth sharing though was that I distinctly recall it being kinda spooky to a little kid's perspective because that art was off in a room by itself and set apart. Not a place the public was passing through to get elsewhere or would have to stay in for other reasons....yet very much on display to any who appreciate that side of art.
(There is always a solution if people aren't looking to PUSH things on others as the point of the exercise)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Tardacus
 


You don't see the hooded figures representing the KKK?


I dont see any hooded figures, i see two guys wearing cowboy hats though



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


well I went into a porn store years ago just to try and buy a movie...I asked for a heterosexual man and woman movie and I was laughed at and told to go to the library!


I felt abnormal then like I wasn't up with the times...

and there is no way I would ever go to a library and ask for porn.

but your right, take the porn off the shelves especially in the library because it is SEX and filth... but leave the killing movies... like Saw etc... I think it is far better watching people killing each other than seeing two people scruffing...not



edit on 21/1/2013 by Thurisaz because: typo



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
Uh, well I can see why they would want to preserve it but there are better venues for that. I'm sure there are some sex museums that would be quite willing to pay for that picture.

Either way, the Library isn't the place for that sort of thing.

yeah but the kids can watch mtv and see all their favorites singers simulating all sorts of stuff... oh but that is just music and the artists are just getting on with jig of it...

how very hypocritical.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join