Ramaswamy's Ten Commandments...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

At no point did I say that.

You wrote this

Part of parenting is eventually letting children make their own decisions, that's why you train them early on.

It's interesting that you object to "perfect images" of the human body in advertising or influencers yet you support heroic nudity.

Your comment suggests you have totally missed the point. One thing about naturism is that it crosses all ages and shows real human beings as they are, precisely as does the Danish programme.

Renaissance art is all about "perfect image" of humans. I suppose you'll be joining in the chorus of objections to exposing boys to Michelangelo's chiseled representation of David. You also wouldn't want to girls to have the impression that they should look like Venus de Milo.

Hardly, given that I posted this thread https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...graphy-discuss to which you and others made some interesting comments!

And why should only boys be exposed to that sculpture? Do you imagine that girls might not also find its "chiseled representation" [sic] appealing?

However, in general Renaissance art was the preserve of the wealthy and the Venus de Milo is not a Renaissance sculpture.

The concerns among many are that children and teens are increasingly developing negative body images because they have often unlimited access to the internet and social media. Of course like all technology internet sites and social media can promote healthy lifestyles, good diet, and exercise etc. but that depends very much on what content is promoted, selected, and viewed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9669337/

Widespread concern has been expressed regarding unrealistic body image and adolescent eating disorder promoting content on social media (SM) platforms. Numerous research studies have examined the impact of SM on body image as well as social vulnerability on negative mental health outcomes. Despite this, few previous studies have examined the impact of SM on body image specifically in vulnerable, underserved, or predominantly minority communities. This study examines the impact of SM on body image issues (BII) in adolescents in a public school system where greater than 50% of the students live in impoverished households. In late 2019, high school student leaders in Northwest Louisiana developed a survey alongside Step Forward, a collective impact initiative. Questions investigated adolescent SM use and mental health in Caddo Parish, namely BII. Teachers within Caddo Parish Public School System administered the survey. Out of the 11,248 total high school students in the school system, nearly 50% were sampled for a sample size of 5,070. Hypotheses included: (1) females were more likely to use SM than males, (2) increasing time spent on SM would correlate with females reporting BII, with males remaining largely unaffected, and (3) highly visual social media (HVSM) platforms would be associated with greater reports of BII than non-HVSM platforms. Results showed females were more likely to use SM (p < 0.001) and report BII (p < 0.001) compared to males, while both sexes reported BII with increasing time spent on SM (p < 0.001). A diversity of platforms were associated with increased BII among SM users compared to non-users (p < 0.001): Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube. This conclusion is tempered by the omission of race as a variable in the study design, the use of self-report, and the use of an unvalidated instrument. These findings suggest that the harmful association between SM use and BII may transcend culture and socioeconomic status for a broadly deleterious effect on adolescent mental wellbeing.

You can read the full paper.

[Diogenes]

You wrote this

Part of parenting is eventually letting children make their own decisions, that's why you train them early on.

If you want to be more dishonest, "eventually" could be limited to the span of 5 days, or even 5 minutes after being born. No need to wait 5 years.

Your comment suggests you have totally missed the point. One thing about naturism is that it crosses all ages and shows real human beings as they are, precisely as does the Danish programme.

I'm aware of the point of the program. I merely believe adults exposing themselves to children is necessary or the best way.

And why should only boys be exposed to that sculpture? Do you imagine that girls might not also find its "chiseled representation" [sic] appealing?

I said nothing about boys finding it appealing, rather boys being exposed to the statue as a "perfect image" even if they do not conform to it seeing as what you took issue to is unrealistic images of a "perfect body".

However, in general Renaissance art was the preserve of the wealthy and the Venus de Milo is not a Renaissance sculpture.

Dodge.

The concerns among many are that children and teens are increasingly developing negative body images because they have often unlimited access to the internet and social media.

What people see and how they react are different topics. You focus on external pressure, I focus on internal response. Personally, I believe that focusing exclusively on external pressure denies a person's agency and denies them the ability to build resilience as it merely creates a crutch of external affirmation. It creates psychological dependency.

Of course[,] like all technology[,] internet sites and social media can promote healthy lifestyles, good diet, and exercise etc. but that depends very much on what content is promoted, selected, and viewed.

Life is full of difficulty, children need to learn how to build resilience to external pressures. Eventually they have to go into the world where a parent can't continue to monitor and censor what content they see. It's also not the place of the State to be constant watchman unless you wish to deny a person their agency and I wouldn't be surprised if you thought the State should be a paternalistic censor.

You can read the full paper.

If you're motive want merely to use articles and the opinions of others as a cudgel, I'd be less cynical. It's almost as if you don't have anything more than just "here's what this person says".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you want to be more dishonest, "eventually" could be limited to the span of 5 days, or even 5 minutes after being born. No need to wait 5 years.

That does not address the issue of young children being permitted access to the internet and often unsupervised.

I'm aware of the point of the program. I merely believe adults exposing themselves to children is necessary or the best way.

Why not offer an alternative method?

I said nothing about boys finding it appealing, rather boys being exposed to the statue as a "perfect image" even if they do not conform to it seeing as what you took issue to is unrealistic images of a "perfect body".

The statue is of a legendary figure not a real human being and the mythic status of the figure. Likewise representations of the gods, even Michelangelo's Risen Christ is remarkably very well honed!

Dodge.

No a general fact.

What people see and how they react are different topics. You focus on external pressure, I focus on internal response. Personally, I believe that focusing exclusively on external pressure denies a person's agency and denies them the ability to build resilience as it merely creates a crutch of external affirmation. It creates psychological dependency.

I am beginning to suspect you have never been a parent.

Life is full of difficulty, children need to learn how to build resilience to external pressures. Eventually they have to go into the world where a parent can't continue to monitor and censor what content they see. It's also not the place of the State to be constant watchman unless you wish to deny a person their agency and I wouldn't be surprised if you thought the State should be a paternalistic censor.

That is another tangential issue.

If you're motive want merely to use articles and the opinions of others as a cudgel, I'd be less cynical. It's almost as if you don't have anything more than just "here's what this person says".

My intent was to illustrate that there are concerns and as the Irish Times article that you initially cited noted, the Danish programme is intended to help break down those stereotypical images found on social media and the internet.

However, if you wish to continue dodging around the actual topic we have nothing further to write to one another.

[Diogenes]

That does not address the issue of young children being permitted access to the internet and often unsupervised.

Newer device have parental controls. A router level VPN provides security and parental controls.

Why not offer an alternative method?

Normal people are literally everywhere assuming you go outside at all.

The statue is of a legendary figure not a real human being and the mythic status of the figure. Likewise representations of the gods, even Michelangelo's Risen Christ is remarkably very well honed!

It's strange you claim to care so much about keeping children from perfected imagery of the human body and that is the entire point of heroic nudity. Renaissance art is first and foremost a humanistic art. The depiction of religious figures is ancillary.

No a general fact.

You're tendency to dodge is a general fact.

I am beginning to suspect you have never been a parent.

I could be in my 80s and be a great-great grandpa.

My intent was to illustrate that there are concerns and as the Irish Times article that you initially cited noted, the Danish programme is intended to help break down those stereotypical images found on social media and the internet.

Michelangelo's statues of David and Christ are no less stereotypical than the images on social media you protest. Why be against the latter and not the former when the very purpose of heroic nudity is to celebrate such physical stereotypes? If the aim was merely to fight stereotypes, adults exposing themselves is not necessary to get the message across that images on social media are stereotypes.

However, if you wish to continue dodging around the actual topic we have nothing further to write to one another.

You've yet to demonstrate why nudity is necessary to combat social media images. Some people just like exposing kids to nudity,

The best thing to do would be for kids to get off social media and "touch grass".

[rogue06]

However, in general Renaissance art was the preserve of the wealthy and the Venus de Milo is not a Renaissance sculpture.

Hmm. They certainly commissioned it, but the family who unarguably were some of the greatest patrons of the era, the Medici of Florence, converted dozens of rooms of an office complex they had built into a museum and put much of their collected art treasures on display. As Alina Cohen notes in In the Italian Renaissance, Wealthy Patrons Used Art for Power

Such proud, public-facing projects bolstered the family’s authority, evincing their refinement, affluence, and commitment to transforming Florence into a cultural powerhouse.

She also notes how both Borgia and Sforza families "similarly used art as propaganda, hiring artisans to construct statuary and buildings in their honor."

Similarly, Dr. Lauren Kilroy-Ewbank and Dr. Heather Graham observe in Why commission artwork during the renaissance?

Paying for something lavish and monumental, such as Sant’Andrea in Mantua (commissioned by Ludovico Gonzaga, ruler of the Italian city-state of Mantua and built by Alberti) or El Escorial (commissioned by Philip II, King of Spain, outside of Madrid), was a powerful statement about a patron’s wealth and status. Philip II was deeply involved in the planning of the massive complex that became El Escorial (a monastery, palace, and church). The complex was built in an austere, classicizing style that was intended to showcase Philip’s imperial power by looking to ancient Roman architectural forms.

And maybe while the common citizen might not be able to wander on in on a whim like a modern museum^[1] churches from chapels to cathedrals were showcases for art at the time. While the art contained in them was largely religious in nature, humans depicted unclothed were not exactly rare -- whether it be the Sistine Chapel or Van Eyck's Ghent Altarpiece.

And, you had the rise of a Middle Class, comprised of merchants, who were eager to commission portraits (which became popular at this time) that were prominently displayed.




1. I really have no idea just how open to the public these early art galleries were (although if they were kept locked up that would largely defeat their propaganda purpose).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hmm. They certainly commissioned it, but the family who unarguably were some of the greatest patrons of the era, the Medici of Florence, converted dozens of rooms of an office complex they had built into a museum and put much of their collected art treasures on display. As Alina Cohen notes in In the Italian Renaissance, Wealthy Patrons Used Art for Power

Such proud, public-facing projects bolstered the family’s authority, evincing their refinement, affluence, and commitment to transforming Florence into a cultural powerhouse.

She also notes how both Borgia and Sforza families "similarly used art as propaganda, hiring artisans to construct statuary and buildings in their honor."

Similarly, Dr. Lauren Kilroy-Ewbank and Dr. Heather Graham observe in Why commission artwork during the renaissance?

Paying for something lavish and monumental, such as Sant’Andrea in Mantua (commissioned by Ludovico Gonzaga, ruler of the Italian city-state of Mantua and built by Alberti) or El Escorial (commissioned by Philip II, King of Spain, outside of Madrid), was a powerful statement about a patron’s wealth and status. Philip II was deeply involved in the planning of the massive complex that became El Escorial (a monastery, palace, and church). The complex was built in an austere, classicizing style that was intended to showcase Philip’s imperial power by looking to ancient Roman architectural forms.

And maybe while the common citizen might not be able to wander on in on a whim like a modern museum^[1] churches from chapels to cathedrals were showcases for art at the time. While the art contained in them was largely religious in nature, humans depicted unclothed were not exactly rare -- whether it be the Sistine Chapel or Van Eyck's Ghent Altarpiece.

And, you had the rise of a Middle Class, comprised of merchants, who were eager to commission portraits (which became popular at this time) that were prominently displayed.




1. I really have no idea just how open to the public these early art galleries were (although if they were kept locked up that would largely defeat their propaganda purpose).

Do you think the average Italian peasant and his family in the late 1400s had access to these?

Did the Medicis offer a tea room and guided tours like the British National Trust?

How much nudity was there in church art? A modesty girdle was added to Michelangelo's Risen Christ.

[Sparko]

Do you think the average Italian peasant and his family in the late 1400s had access to these?

Did the Medicis offer a tea room and guided tours like the British National Trust?

How much nudity was there in church art? A modesty girdle was added to Michelangelo's Risen Christ.

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiFy9fRwoSBAxVAh-4BHQQkBn4QFnoECBoQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArgument_from_incredulity&usg=AOvVaw3j-BCyuUMdLuqAhffq31hI&opi=89978449

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

© Copyright Original Source

You use this logical fallacy quite a bit. Like with Pilate's wife, for example.

[rogue06]

Do you think the average Italian peasant and his family in the late 1400s had access to these?

Did the Medicis offer a tea room and guided tours like the British National Trust?

How much nudity was there in church art? A modesty girdle was added to Michelangelo's Risen Christ.

Re-read my post and you'll notice I dealt directly with the only question you ask that isn't just one of your snarks or irrelevant.

[rogue06]

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiFy9fRwoSBAxVAh-4BHQQkBn4QFnoECBoQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArgument_from_incredulity&usg=AOvVaw3j-BCyuUMdLuqAhffq31hI&opi=89978449

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

© Copyright Original Source

You use this logical fallacy quite a bit. Like with Pilate's wife, for example.

Or Christians communicating with one another in the first and second century.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Re-read my post and you'll notice I dealt directly with the only question you ask that isn't just one of your snarks or irrelevant.

I just have a delightful vision of the Medici Tea Rooms and liveried servants giving guided tours. Oh and a gift shop!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiFy9fRwoSBAxVAh-4BHQQkBn4QFnoECBoQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArgument_from_incredulity&usg=AOvVaw3j-BCyuUMdLuqAhffq31hI&opi=89978449

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

© Copyright Original Source

You use this logical fallacy quite a bit. Like with Pilate's wife, for example.

It is not a logical fallacy. It is a joke.

[rogue06]

I just have a delightful vision of the Medici Tea Rooms and liveried servants giving guided tours. Oh and a gift shop!

I would be far from surprised to discover that you regularly experience all sorts of "visions."

I made clear in the post that "the common citizen might not be able to wander on in on a whim like a modern museum" so I have to wonder about why you keep going on about your various puerile "visions"

Yet, as was stated, if the purpose of such early art galleries was to keep it hidden then just how could they then "use art as propaganda" which would "[bolster] the family's authority"?


Moreover, you brushed off all the art on open display at everything from chapels to cathedrals. I guess that was too difficult to scoff at.

[Sparko]

It is not a logical fallacy. It is a joke.

Most of your arguments are.