It's a cool video for a cool song. There's nothing remotely sexual.
Is our society really so sexualized that we cannot imagine a man and a woman together for anything other than sex? Even when the woman is a child?
> tfw your ex-gf is a tiny skinny girl with blond medium length hair and bangs
> tfw she's fucking this hairy hipster faggot with a beard now
> tfw this video makes you extremely upset for reasons that have nothing to do with pedophilia
So all art involving nudity is inherently sexual, disregarding any appreciation of the physical form, or symbolism of nudity meaning vulnerability or innoccence?
If I get a time machine first thing I'm doing is going up to Michelangelo an telling him to put some fucking pants on his scuptures, and paintings.
You go to pick up your 13 year old niece, cousin whatever from school and a nude, hairy, overweight 40 year old man is taking a stroll on the campus. There's nothing wrong with this?
Now you are just making shit up because of your own security
We are not saying we are attracted to the people in this video we are saying its message has nothing do with sexuality you fucking ape
You are deflecting. I'll ask one more time before I just ignore you.
What is inherently sexual about nudity?
Answer the question is a straightforward manner, not with some bullshit socratic non-answer.
There is no statement aside from Sia's own personal experiences, and the message of the song
It's fucking interpretive dance, not some elaborate corporate scheme made by Shia to sniff children
The girl is wearing the exact fucking outfit as the "Chandelier" music video, and people are only in an uproar about this video because it has a manwith no shirt, or pants
For fucks sake the insecurity of you people is mindboggling
there is sexuality in it and that frankly should not be a problem. it is not explicit sexuality. there is an artfulness to it that allows for interpretation, including the pedophilic response and it would be ideal if we lived in a world where people could accept that interpretation as food for thought rather than a moral threat.
but aside from that it's a schmaltzy video for a grating song. total garbage.
While that person did state that as a fact (something you should avoid doing when describing art), it does make sense.
Nude performances can eschew things that the artist considers superfluous to the themes being discussed. Fashion, clothes, social cues such as make up or even traditional hair styles may add something that detracts from the intended message.
In this video all of the meaning and emotion is purely expressed through the dancer's motions and physical expressions(and the song of course), so costumes are superfluous.
i never said it does, i just said that was the artistic statement made
it's not necessarily bad either, it just is the base form of all humanity and art uses nudity for this means
they're is nothing wrong with it outside of what society perceives it as
Well what do you think society perceives nudity as, and for what reason do you think they perceive it that way?
So its subjective? Which means that if the majority/lawmakers of society consider it wrong, it shouldn't be tolerated?
Only America is having a shitfit about it. The land where gutting someone with an axe is more "natural" than some tits, and where every man in inherently a pedophile until proven otherwise. And even then, you should still be suspicious of him.
My response want so much focused on this video because as you said, its not a truly nude performance. It was more about nude performance in general
I like your creative interpretation though
i think part of society perceives nudity as sexual, that doesn't make it right
the reason we made clothes was for protection from the elements dude, not for some weird ass before-sex ritual
>Which means that if the majority/lawmakers of society consider it wrong, it shouldn't be tolerated?
Consider what to be wrong? Nude performances or nudity itself?
You're treading into very vague territory here when you talk about society and the ethics of lawmaking as personal values come into play there.
unless, there's something in your brain that quickly associates any sort of interaction between an adult and a child with them having sexual contact, you won't see this as a pedophilic.
also people just want to be mad about something so this seems like a good target
>Consider what to be wrong? Nude performances or nudity itself?
Well lets say nudity that's physically exposed to minors? Is that bad to you?
>nudity does cause arousal, this does not make it sexual
Yes it does
Thats not true. We see nudity in movies outside of sex, such as for comical reasons, shower scenes, characters getting out of bed, etc.
>Because porn is the first time we see a stranger naked.
That's an assumption. Its possible to be exposed to nudity in a setting that I described above.
The nudity itself doesnt cause arousal. Arousal comes from the person experiencing it. The person experiencing arousal reads something from the nudity that suggests sex to them, such as a suggestive pose or "bedroom eyes".
Our society also makes the nude form a sort of forbidden fruit, so even images that arent explicity sexual may become sexual because of that feeling of attaining something or doing something you "shouldnt be"
that's the shitty thing about how society treat's "celebrities". as soon as you act in some movie or tv show, become an athlete for some team or become a famous musician, people think they somehow have a right to police your activities to the smallest detail. so in someway they have to act how other people expect them too. they can say fuck it and not apologize when they do something that offends a group of people, but that way they'll quickly loose their relevance and their livelihood
Would you be willing to say that that is not the experience for most children? The majority of naked bodies belonging to strangers seen from ages 10-16 aren't in porn? Because I would disagree.
>Well lets say nudity that's physically exposed to minors? Is that bad to you?
I do not think that nudity or the human form is something to be ashamed of or hidden as a default. Now, granted I'm not a nudist so I do adhere to certain social conventions when it comes to nudity, but i dont think there is anything wrong with a minor being around nudity.
Sexual content and minors is different however and is alot more nuanced.
>Yes it is
In my country, there are a lot of nudist beaches and people don't start randomly fucking each other because they're naked.
Sexual thoughts are often the product of circumstances, mood and context. Pure nudity doesn't provoke them unless you read something sexual into it - which you do, apparently.
Do you start masturbating furiously over every titty you see? Your views are so prude and American, it hurts.
ok maybe not "fold" but you know what i mean. even if you have a boner it can be pushed flat against your stomach with no discomfort. now pushing it down is another story.
this is of track. my point was, he can fit through the bars. and that rustled me and my jimmies.
The only people outraged by this are closet pedos in denial.
This might be true. The backlash didn't come from normal people crying pedo, it came from actual pedophiles who were turned on, which actually IS cruel if we as a society say they can't act on their arousal. Sia was justified in apologizing to ACTUAL pedos.