Debate Guide: Reverse sexualization: Difference between revisions
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Armani.PNG|thumb|Reverse- | [[Image:Armani.PNG|thumb|Reverse-sexualized by a British morality "Watchdog"]]Very often, the panic aroused upon the discovery, making or release of naked or provocative child photography renders non-explicitly-sexual matter erotic in retrospect. | ||
By classifying any naked picture of a child as morally dangerous "pornography" worthy of [[censorship]], we admit that even prepubescent children's bodies arouse some erotic interest in society. It is indeed a bizarre quirk of Anglo-American orthodoxy, that the only "appropriate" response to depictions of naked or non-normative children is to complain of a "sexual" impropriety. Is this itself not only ''improper'', but prurient and counter to widely-accepted [[Research: Youth sexuality|evidence]]]? This intuitive knowledge of children's aesthetic, erotic appeal, attests to how human desire is really an inter-meshing of conflicting and complimenting attractions. | |||
One revealing example of reverse-sexualization comes from a Junior Armani poster (pictured), which was (astonishingly) criticized for sexualizing children back in 2004.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3706075.stm Armani advert slammed by watchdog]</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070323133318/http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/art/armani/ Geocities page with rundown of controversy]</ref> 74 UK adult complainants had determined the pose to be "sexually inappropriate", as it carried connotations of precocity and agency - something they instinctively saw as unlocking the erotic potential of a child. It was the ''absence'' of "uglification" and [[infantilization]] that confounded the complainants, showing that what we are in fact desperately defending is an ''imposed'' moral standard, and not some sacred natural state. While we might 20 years later (in the era of "sharenting" Instagram Kids) look back and laugh at the ''Armani'' episode, the fact that we do, speaks to the instability of [[Childhood Innocence|childhood innocence]] as a notion. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 22:38, 23 October 2022
Very often, the panic aroused upon the discovery, making or release of naked or provocative child photography renders non-explicitly-sexual matter erotic in retrospect.
By classifying any naked picture of a child as morally dangerous "pornography" worthy of censorship, we admit that even prepubescent children's bodies arouse some erotic interest in society. It is indeed a bizarre quirk of Anglo-American orthodoxy, that the only "appropriate" response to depictions of naked or non-normative children is to complain of a "sexual" impropriety. Is this itself not only improper, but prurient and counter to widely-accepted evidence]? This intuitive knowledge of children's aesthetic, erotic appeal, attests to how human desire is really an inter-meshing of conflicting and complimenting attractions.
One revealing example of reverse-sexualization comes from a Junior Armani poster (pictured), which was (astonishingly) criticized for sexualizing children back in 2004.[1][2] 74 UK adult complainants had determined the pose to be "sexually inappropriate", as it carried connotations of precocity and agency - something they instinctively saw as unlocking the erotic potential of a child. It was the absence of "uglification" and infantilization that confounded the complainants, showing that what we are in fact desperately defending is an imposed moral standard, and not some sacred natural state. While we might 20 years later (in the era of "sharenting" Instagram Kids) look back and laugh at the Armani episode, the fact that we do, speaks to the instability of childhood innocence as a notion.