Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bare Breasts On Statue Offend Some at Arboretum [View all]proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)53. This editorial is hilarious.
And I completely agree. This outrage is just silly. It's art, people.
I just heard! There is outrage at the Overland Park arboretum! Quick, shield the eyes of your youngsters. Was it a turtle that fell out of her shell without the appropriate undershirt on? No! Was it a mother bunny nursing her baby bunnies without the appropriate covering to hide herself from the public? No! Was it the female chipmunk that didnt run fast enough from one rock to another exposing her naked self to innocent bystanders? No, it wasnt even that.
It was breasts of the female, human species. Unlike nature that is uncovered, these breasts must be covered immediately! This according to people who are outraged that a statue in the statue garden at the Overland Park arboretum have been complaining about a statue that has exposed female breasts! Quick hide your eyes at natural body parts of the human species displayed in nature. The outrage, the horror, the damaged eyes of our innocent children .
If you havent Googled it yet, the statue is of a body of a female with breasts exposed holding a camera and it looks like she is taking a picture of her exposed breasts. Some of the outrage is around the glorification of taking photos of your naked body. I heard criticism around the fact that this is encouraging our young people to engage in this activity and sext these pictures.
Hold on people. Just hold the outrage for a quick sec. See, the camera in the statue is that, a camera. If kids are sexting I think they are using the iPhone that you, as parents, have provided for them. Not a camera. That is very old school. So shame on you parents, not the statue, for purchasing the devices that these kids are sexting on.
Second, Im not a parenting expert or anything, but here is how I would deflect any glorification provided by the statue for sexting. Suzy, if you think its cool to take a picture of your breasts and sext them to anyone, check out this statue. See, the statue doesnt have a head. Thats what could happen to you if you sext. You could also turn to stone and end up for eternity standing in an arboretum with everyone looking at your boobies with no head. Trust me; the thought of the public looking at my daughters breasts in a public place for eternity is enough to scare her to death. My child is mortified at the idea of changing in her bathing suit in a public locker room. Also, my daughter is pretty attached to her head.
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/breasts-at-the-arboretum/#storylink=cpy
It was breasts of the female, human species. Unlike nature that is uncovered, these breasts must be covered immediately! This according to people who are outraged that a statue in the statue garden at the Overland Park arboretum have been complaining about a statue that has exposed female breasts! Quick hide your eyes at natural body parts of the human species displayed in nature. The outrage, the horror, the damaged eyes of our innocent children .
If you havent Googled it yet, the statue is of a body of a female with breasts exposed holding a camera and it looks like she is taking a picture of her exposed breasts. Some of the outrage is around the glorification of taking photos of your naked body. I heard criticism around the fact that this is encouraging our young people to engage in this activity and sext these pictures.
Hold on people. Just hold the outrage for a quick sec. See, the camera in the statue is that, a camera. If kids are sexting I think they are using the iPhone that you, as parents, have provided for them. Not a camera. That is very old school. So shame on you parents, not the statue, for purchasing the devices that these kids are sexting on.
Second, Im not a parenting expert or anything, but here is how I would deflect any glorification provided by the statue for sexting. Suzy, if you think its cool to take a picture of your breasts and sext them to anyone, check out this statue. See, the statue doesnt have a head. Thats what could happen to you if you sext. You could also turn to stone and end up for eternity standing in an arboretum with everyone looking at your boobies with no head. Trust me; the thought of the public looking at my daughters breasts in a public place for eternity is enough to scare her to death. My child is mortified at the idea of changing in her bathing suit in a public locker room. Also, my daughter is pretty attached to her head.
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/breasts-at-the-arboretum/#storylink=cpy
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
70 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Greek Olympic athletes in antiquity competed in the nude. This is probably an homage to that since
stevenleser
May 2012
#32
Guernica comes to mind. You are SUPPOSED to be disturbed by Guernica. That's the point.
stevenleser
May 2012
#33
I'm pretty sure that's the point. Taking her own pic at a photo spot sans head...
Egalitarian Thug
May 2012
#37
Someone once told me that, at the Vatican, one pope was offended by male genitalia on statues
applegrove
May 2012
#3
I do not question as being "appropriate." I would hope it would engage the viewer in a
CTyankee
May 2012
#14
I don't have too many expectations about art in public spaces, altho I do kind of like
CTyankee
May 2012
#44
Well, you know, everyone is going to have their own interpretation of public art!
CTyankee
May 2012
#66
I don't object to the nudity but I find it creepy and unattractive. It probably gives kids
Raine
May 2012
#18
yet the NFL is a family setting and that's three hours of men trying to cripple themselves
Suji to Seoul
May 2012
#20
When Rick was assigned to the Captain's landing party his shirt was red and he was made of meat.
hunter
May 2012
#28
The curator said that the sculpture is meant to convey the idea that the person
stevenleser
May 2012
#42
well, that was my thought when I realized she was holding a camera on herself.
CTyankee
May 2012
#50
I have hesitated, in some of my Challenge threads, to post images of art that is
CTyankee
May 2012
#67