NYT: Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing (nude art made some people upset)

[SkinInsite]

Oh god here we go....

[skinsfan51]

IMO, when you make it a big deal, you are asking for trouble/problems down the road. I'm not talking about sexually explicit stuff, just the human body.

Those that make a big deal of it and "hide" it ect... only make their kids that much more determined to find out what the big deal is.

So where do you draw the line, and according to what standard? I'm not against nudity. (Hey, I have SEVEN children. ) I'm just against it outside of marriage. There is no "trouble/problems" with that. It creates a healthy marriage for life (something that's foreign to most homes today).

[Beaudry]

IMO, when you make it a big deal, you are asking for trouble/problems down the road. I'm not talking about sexually explicit stuff, just the human body.

Those that make a big deal of it and "hide" it ect... only make their kids that much more determined to find out what the big deal is.

If it's really no big deal how about you PM me some naked pictures of your wife? You know, it's just a human body... no big deal.

No offense, code, I was just making a point. There is a line that needs to be drawn. Personally, I don't think any example here should upset parents, but I can understand where they are coming from.

[rincewind]

Because fallen mankind abuses that which God meant for good. (Now, I'm sure you'll have 15 out of context verses to bolster your reply, but it won't work.)

Answer this: do you think it's ok to expose 5th graders to pornography? If not, why? Are you offended by the naked human form? Are you offended by human sexuality, which is a natural part of human existence?

Nice straw man. You said nud3 art was junk. We're simply pointing out that that is not true in all circumstances - like Michangelo's 'Creation' on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

[Destino]

Because fallen mankind abuses that which God meant for good. (Now, I'm sure you'll have 15 out of context verses to bolster your reply, but it won't work.)

Answer this: do you think it's ok to expose 5th graders to pornography? If not, why? Are you offended by the naked human form? Are you offended by human sexuality, which is a natural part of human existence?

Nudity and sexuality are different. There is a huge difference between what is seen on the pages of a biology book, carved out of marble by a long dead master, and that which can be seen on the pages of Hustler. This is obvious to most people and something which I understood at age 7. As someone already pointed out some famous nude art appears in churches, man wasn't created with a pair of dockers on.

[skinsfan51]

Nice straw man. You said nud3 art was junk. We're simply pointing out that that is not true in all circumstances - like Michangelo's 'Creation' on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

It's not a staw man. The kids weren't taken to the Sistine Chapel, and we all know what nude art is. So it's your argument that smacks of straw, bud. Again, WHY is it wrong to expose children any and all forms of nudity? Who is to say any of it is wrong? BTW, rince, do you have children?

[Beaudry]

Nudity and sexuality are different. There is a huge difference between what is seen on the pages of a biology book, carved out of marble by a long dead master, and that which can be seen on the pages of Hustler. This is obvious to most people and something which I understood at age 7. As someone already pointed out some famous nude art appears in churches, man wasn't created with a pair of dockers on.

C'mon, Destino. Are you telling me that you never masturbated to this?

[skinsfan51]

Nudity and sexuality are different. There is a huge difference between what is seen on the pages of a biology book, carved out of marble by a long dead master, and that which can be seen on the pages of Hustler. This is obvious to most people and something which I understood at age 7. As someone already pointed out some famous nude art appears in churches, man wasn't created with a pair of dockers on.

So is it wrong to expose children to human sexuality? C'mon now, be consistent with your beliefs, boys. I will again push the question, WHO sets the standard?

[Destino]

Again, WHY is it wrong to expose children any and all forms of nudity?

Becuase there is a difference between nudity and sexuality.

[skinsfan51]

Becuase there is a difference between nudity and sexuality.

So why is it wrong to show it to children? According to what or who? You? Who?

[Destino]

So is it wrong to expose children to human sexuality? C'mon now, be consistent with your beliefs, boys. I will again push the question, WHO sets the standard?

I am being completely consistent. You think a carving of a nude human figure is sexual - I think that's complete and utter nonsense. The nude human form and sexuality are not one in the same despite your inability to seperate the two.

[skinsfan51]

I am being completely consistent. You think a carving of a nude human figure is sexual - I think that's complete and utter nonsense. The nude human form and sexuality are not one in the same despite your inability to seperate the two.

Yes, and you're avoiding my questions. I never said a carving was sexual. You're trying to force me into the hole you've created. But let's be honest, one often leads to the other in real people. I say where is the line drawn? You say nudity is ok to show to children, but sexuality is not? Ok, is it ok to show children a movie of naked women in NON-sexual scenes (like a shower or in bed)? No? Why? According to what or who?

[Burgold]

So is it wrong to expose children to human sexuality? C'mon now, be consistent with your beliefs, boys. I will again push the question, WHO sets the standard?

The parents when they signed the permission slips.

The principal when he approved the trip.

The State Government when they funded the Museum.

The Board when they approved the installation.

The Church gave tacit approval by not ordering boycotts and outlawing attendance at this museum.

The list goes on.

[Destino]

Yes, and you're avoiding my questions. I never said a carving was sexual. You're trying to force me into the hole you've created. But let's be honest, one often leads to the other in real people. I say where is the line drawn? You say nudity is ok to show to children, but sexuality is not? Ok, is it ok to show children a movie of naked women in NON-sexual scenes (like a shower or in bed)? No? Why? According to what or who?

You consider a shower scene not sexual? I don't even think directors would try to sell that story.

I'll give you an example of non-sexual nudity on TV. Naked natives. You get arroused by them? You think kids see them and have a moral crisis? They are completely natural in their often gross naked state.

If there was a movie about art and there was a naked model on screen posing for tasteful painting I wouldn't care either. Yes it's a nude woman/man, no it isn't sexual.

Maybe it is to you, like I said I wasn't raised to view things that way. My parents were always far more disgusted by movies showing people getting shot and killed, which they deemed entirely wrong for small children, then non-sexual nudity. I went to art museusms with them and when I would laugh at the stuff discussed in this thread they'd explain to me that it's natural and it's art. Don't think I was raised by hippy's either, I was raised in a catholic hispanic home, not exactly known for their tolerant views on sexuality.

[rincewind]

Yes, and you're avoiding my questions. I never said a carving was sexual. You're trying to force me into the hole you've created. But let's be honest, one often leads to the other in real people. I say where is the line drawn? You say nud1ty is ok to show to children, but sexual1ty is not? Ok, is it ok to show children a movie of nakd women in NON-sexual scenes (like a shower or in bed)? No? Why? According to what or who?

And you're avoiding the question as to whether or not you think 'David' and 'Creation' are, as you called nud3 art, 'junk'.

[SkinInsite]

So is it wrong to expose children to human sexuality? C'mon now, be consistent with your beliefs, boys. I will again push the question, WHO sets the standard?

Yeah i mean really what's so different about Christ being tortured in the passions and some guy getting his eye drilled out in Hostel.

[skinsfan51]

The parents when they signed the permission slips.

Interesting. So when parents send their kids to public schools they automatically give authority for the teachers to teach them any and all things? Do you really believe that?

Ok, let's say your seven year old son comes home and tells you that his teacher brought in a special speaker from the group LAMBDA, and that "he told us, daddy, that it's ok for two men to be married to each other." (BTW, this is not extreme at all. It's happened.)

I guess you approved of that when you "signed the permisson slip," right?

[skinsfan51]

And you're avoiding the question as to whether or not you think 'David' and 'Creation' are, as you called nud3 art, 'junk'.

Well, first, let's get the facts straight. I called "junk" what the children most likely saw a the museum. No, I don't think what is in the Sistine Chapel is "junk," per se, but I wouldn't show it to my children.

So now I'd like to know why you are still avoiding my questions? I mean, you could have pressed me like you did above and then answered. At least it was a nice try at diversion.

[Burgold]

If I signed the permission slip for my child to attend something, then I am in agreement to letting the child be exposed to that thing. In this particular situation, there were no surprises. Every responsible parent had the opportunity to find out exactly what their children would be exposed to beforehand and reject it if they found it offensive. There's no gray area here. It was, "Hey, I want to take your child to the Dallas Museum of Art to look at the exhibitions." The parents then said, "take my child" or "No, that's not for my kid."

BTW, here are some more.

The principal when he approved the trip.

The State Government when they funded the Museum.

The Board when they approved the installation.

The Church gave tacit approval by not ordering boycotts and outlawing attendance at this museum.

The list goes on.

[skinsfan51]

You consider a shower scene not sexual? I don't even think directors would try to sell that story.

I'll give you an example of non-sexual nudity on TV. Naked natives. You get arroused by them? You think kids see them and have a moral crisis? They are completely natural in their often gross naked state.

If there was a movie about art and there was a naked model on screen posing for tasteful painting I wouldn't care either. Yes it's a nude woman/man, no it isn't sexual.

Maybe it is to you, like I said I wasn't raised to view things that way. My parents were always far more disgusted by movies showing people getting shot and killed, which they deemed entirely wrong for small children, then non-sexual nudity. I went to art museusms with them and when I would laugh at the stuff discussed in this thread they'd explain to me that it's natural and it's art. Don't think I was raised by hippy's either, I was raised in a catholic hispanic home, not exactly known for their tolerant views on sexuality.

Is taking a shower a sexual act? I don't mean making it sensual. I'm talking about a locker room of girls taking showers after a sporting event. Do the girls in the shower feel sexually aroused? When I showered in the locker room after baseball games I didn't. So what's wrong with showing that scene to children? Would it create moral problems?

To answer your question, no naked native had no affect on me. But I wouldn't show that to my children.

[skinsfan51]

If I signed the permission slip for my child to attend something, then I am in agreement to letting the child be exposed to that thing. In this particular situation, there were no surprises. Every responsible parent had the opportunity to find out exactly what their children would be exposed to beforehand and reject it if they found it offensive. There's no gray area here. It was, "Hey, I want to take your child to the Dallas Museum of Art to look at the exhibitions." The parents then said, "take my child" or "No, that's not for my kid."

BTW, here are some more.

The principal when he approved the trip.

The State Government when they funded the Museum.

The Board when they approved the installation.

The Church gave tacit approval by not ordering boycotts and outlawing attendance at this museum.

The list goes on.

But aren't you giving the school permission to teach ANYTHING THEY deem appropriate by sending your kids there every day?

[rincewind]

Well, first, let's get the facts straight. I called "junk" what the children most likely saw a the museum. No, I don't think what is in the Sistine Chapel is "junk," per se, but I wouldn't show it to my children.

So now I'd like to know why you are still avoiding my questions? I mean, you could have pressed me like you did above and then answered. At least it was a nice try at diversion.

To be fair - you never directed a question at me.

But, I'd say there is a line. And obviously parents have to draw it for their own children. In this instance, however, if the parents signed the slip - it's their own damn fault for not investigating what was at the museum BEFORE their kids went.

As for the line - like I said, each parent has to draw their own. I just think yours is drawn WAY too early. And you did say 'nud3 art is junk'. The Sistine Chapel and 'David' would fall into the category of nud3 art.

[OrangeSkin]

These poor kids have bigger issues if their parents are getting a teacher FIRED for exposing them to ART.

The parents, principal, and anyone else involved in the firing of this teacher is a complete and utter moron.

I find this story just as disturbing as the Foley situation. Thanks for planting the seeds of another artless closed-minded generation and firing a well intentioned teacher, parents.

Instead of FIRING a teacher and acting as though nudity and the human form is a shameful thing, how about you TALK to your kids about what they saw? God forbid they grow up with a positive, healthy image of nudity and sexuality instead of fully believing that it is a dirty, shameful thing and perpetuate the same thing to their children. :doh:

[Burgold]

But aren't you giving the school permission to teach ANYTHING THEY deem appropriate by sending your kids there every day?

Apples and oranges argument. Stay on topic. Here you have a proposed trip to a State run Art Museum. The State declared that it was appropriate for all ages. The parents were told what the purpose of this trip was. The parents knew or could find out exactly what's in the museum. Museum trips are also usually tour guided on field trips, so they even could have found out exactly which exhibitions would be featured. In this situation, the parent knows absolutely everything beforehand and signs off on it. No surprises.

To your question, when I choose to send my child to that school, I have given my permission for the child to be exposed to a particular curriculum. I can read that curriculum before the school year starts. If I disagree, I can find another school or homeschool. There are options depending on what level of sacrifice or attention the parent is willing to spend on their children. Now, you are correct, there may be individual details that you find objectionable that there's no way you could have known would be shared. A mundane example: Occassionally, teachers curse in the classroom. It's unacceptable. If it happens a lot the teacher deserves consequences. However, these unknown events need to be dealt with after the fact.

A field trip to a state run art museum in the local community to see art that is available for any parent to see beforehand to quell any potential moral qualms is an entirely different issue. You sign the slip and it's your responsibility. Parents avoiding responsibility is a much bigger issue to me than children being exposed to art.

[skinsfan51]

To be fair - you never directed a question at me.

It's not a staw man. The kids weren't taken to the Sistine Chapel, and we all know what nude art is. So it's your argument that smacks of straw, bud. Again, WHY is it wrong to expose children any and all forms of nudity? Who is to say any of it is wrong? BTW, rince, do you have children?

You're right. I directed THREE of them to you.

But, I'd say there is a line. And obviously parents have to draw it for their own children. In this instance, however, if the parents signed the slip - it's their own damn fault for not investigating what was at the museum BEFORE their kids went.

I agree.

As for the line - like I said, each parent has to draw their own. I just think yours is drawn WAY too early. And you did say 'nud3 art is junk'. The Sistine Chapel and 'David' would fall into the category of nud3 art.

The first part about my kids is your opinion which has no relevance on how I raise my kids. The second part I clarified, but that somehow isn't acceptable to you. That's fine.