Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in Utah. Bare shoulders on women- even on children- are considered semi-pornographic by some here. Underwear ads are considered to be close to hardcore porn, particularly in the northern part of the state. Do a search on "porn shoulders" and you'll see how sensitive some here are to what they perceive as being too much flesh.
I've been to European museums where classes of little kids were seeing all sorts of nude art, it's no big deal. But Utah is Utah. Even showing kneecaps here can get some people in a tizzy.
Yeah, no kidding. That's why I put "liberal" in quotes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
Most liberals would see that as inappropriate. Your family member is a nutcase, that's all.
She wasn't a nutcase, and you're being intellectually dishonest by claiming that "most" liberals would see that as inappropriate. Most liberals today would see it as inappropriate, but back in the day (like, 20, 30 years ago), many liberal parents thought it was beneficial to expose kids to sex and nudity as soon as possible so they wouldn't turn up with the sexual hangups of an older generation. Howard Stern's parents were definitely one of those types, as was Lena Dunham's parents. (When Stern was 12, his mother bought him a subscription to Playboy.)
This relative was one of those people who heard all of that rhetoric back when it was really popular and followed that advice. Of course today, she would do things completely differently. But when she had this kid, that line of thinking was definitely a liberal line of thinking. If you kept things from your kids, you were "sheltering" them, being Purittanical, uptight, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
The parents need to calm down. Most likely their overly precious children were not irreversibly damaged by the teacher's oversight.
It was the children who complained about the paintings and then had the teacher dismiss their complaints by insisting that they talk to their parents. Why is everyone ignoring this fact?
Yeah, no kidding. That's why I put "liberal" in quotes.
She wasn't a nutcase, and you're being intellectually dishonest by claiming that "most" liberals would see that as inappropriate. Most liberals today would see it as inappropriate, but back in the day (like, 20, 30 years ago), many liberal parents thought it was beneficial to expose kids to sex and nudity as soon as possible so they wouldn't turn up with the sexual hangups of an older generation. Howard Stern's parents were definitely one of those types, as was Lena Dunham's parents. (When Stern was 12, his mother bought him a subscription to Playboy.)
This relative was one of those people who heard all of that rhetoric back when it was really popular and followed that advice. Of course today, she would do things completely differently. But when she had this kid, that line of thinking was definitely a liberal line of thinking. If you kept things from your kids, you were "sheltering" them, being Purittanical, uptight, etc.
It was the children who complained about the paintings and then had the teacher dismiss their complaints by insisting that they talk to their parents. Why is everyone ignoring this fact?
I'm pretty liberal and I'm old enough to remember, but I never knew any parents who purposely exposed their kids to nudity and sex in order to make them better people. Howard Stern is obnoxious and I have only seen a tiny bit of his horrible tv show when changing tv channels. He shouldn't even be on tv--if he still is on tv.
The children complained to the parents about the pictures. Well, as the above poster from Utah, said, maybe it's how they are being raised in Utah. I guess we could all understand that. If they are being told at home that nudity is evil and pornographic, then they would tend to believe it. If it's that strict out there, then maybe that teacher should have been more careful, but it's still just a mistake and not intentional and it is not pornography. Pornography is in the intent of the person's mind. This teacher was just trying to teach art.
It was the children who complained about the paintings and then had the teacher dismiss their complaints by insisting that they talk to their parents. Why is everyone ignoring this fact?
Since they had already seen the paintings what do you think would have been the appropriate response? Asking them to talk to their parents isn't 'dismissing' their complaints, it directing them to the proper persons for such discussions.
From what I saw in the news video these students were exposed to no more nudity than my third graders see in their trade books about ancient Greece and Rome and that's pretty tame.
I assume the instructional materials available in the school library would be approved for use, otherwise why have them?
Some posters are hilariously prudish. Classical paintings (often featuring nudity) are genuinely educational. We studied them in my world history class in 9th grade and again much more extensively in college, including a trip to the MET to see a lot of the artwork in person. If these children are so distressed at seeing some nudity in art I think there are bigger issues going on at home with them. Probably religion related considering this happened in UT. Some parents calling depictions in old art “pornography” is all I really need to know. The school had these in the property, I don’t see how this is the teacher’s fault. It isn’t like he brought outside sources in, he used materials provided by the school. So was the school in possession of porn? Come on.
More than anything with that age group, I’d be worried about the kids snickering and not being able to take it seriously because of the nudity. I remember in 6th grade we had our first health/sex ed type of class where we all sat in a classroom together, in place of gym class, and had teachers tell us all about the male and female reproductive systems, with diagrams included. The boys thought it was hilarious. I can only imagine classical art.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
First, that's not "the liberal thing." Most liberals would see that as inappropriate. Your family member is a nutcase, that's all.
The teacher showed pictures that were not age appropriate. Kids that age aren't developmentally ready in most cases, to see and understand such things. So the teacher made a mistake by not looking at each and every picture beforehand. Mistakes should be forgiven. What we probably have here is yet another case of outraged parents ruling the schools.
The parents need to calm down. Most likely their overly precious children were not irreversibly damaged by the teacher's oversight. But the helicopter parents come running to the school administration threatening a lawsuit and the school administration fires the teacher. Fired over human error, smeared, career ruined. Maybe some of these "perfect" parents ought to try full time teaching for a day or two!
Not developmentally ready to see simple nudity, depicted in kind of unrealistic art?
It's the human body. The children themselves have one.
I really don't see the value of keeping the appearance of an adult body a great secret from a 6th grader.
How can they comprehend their own bodies, and maturing, if they don't know what human adult bodies look like? I'm really surprised any of the kids were "scarred" or even mildly upset by this.
But then again, I grew up in the age when every single issue of National Geographic had completely topless African women, often nursing a baby, and then Africans from behind where you could see their entire posterior nudity.
As a teacher, I would not choose either of those paintings for a discussion on color. They just seem like strange choices. There are so many other paintings to choose from that would have been a better fit for a lesson on color. It just sounds like the teacher was being lazy and didn't care to properly prepare for that days lesson.
We don't have the whole story, maybe not being prepared was an ongoing issue, or maybe there had been other issues with this teacher.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The school had these in the property, I don’t see how this is the teacher’s fault. It isn’t like he brought outside sources in, he used materials provided by the school. So was the school in possession of porn? Come on. 
