A Conversation for The Forum

The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3841

Montana Redhead (now with letters)

I wouldn't recommend it, because of the inhalant properties. You'd have a tough time breathing.

And I would think getting it off would be something of a bi**h.


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3842

Mother of God, Empress of the Universe

How odd you'd bring up body painting as potentially offensive, Dealer. I was thinking about it today at work. I've been churning some ideas, would like to paint someone (or maybe a couple of someones) and then take photos of them, make something interesting of it. Wanna come be my model? smiley - biggrin I use brushes and sponges, though, not spray paint.


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3843

Arnie Appleaide - Inspector General of the Defenders of Freedom

I would model, but I have a feeling I'm in the wrong hemisphere...smiley - smiley

So spray paint wouldn't let your skin breath, so that is bad. But that aside, when is it immoral to do body painting? Are there any images which it would be immoral to put on your own body? When is it immoral to paint other, consenting bodies?


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3844

U1567414

how about spray paint?>> gold finger would be proud of you .smiley - laugh


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3845

Mrs Zen

Let me flip a question back at you Dealer - what makes body painting a special instance of painting?

I may be missing a fundamental, but I don't really see the difference between the questions you ask and "when is it immoral to do painting? Are there any images which it would be immoral to paint? When is it immoral to paint?"

I also struggle to apply the adjective 'moral' to the verb 'to paint', though I accept that that failing my be mine.

*sits back to listen and learn*

Ben


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3846

Kerr_Avon - hunting stray apostrophes and gutting poorly parsed sentences

I can't see how *talking* about body painting could be wrong, but I can see an angle of attack from which body painting itself could be seen as immoral: if your beliefs mean that you think the human body should be covered up and not emphasised, then you could see body painting as wrong because it draws attention to the human form.

But then I regularly strip, paint myself green and dance to the drums on top of a hill, so what would I know. smiley - winkeye

smiley - ale


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3847

Malabarista - now with added pony

Well, I suppose painting little Swastikas and a Hitler moustache on someone would be offensive, although you could probably get away with it in the name of art...


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3848

Potholer

Painting a body *doesn't* require all of it to be put on public display afterwards.


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3849

Mr. Dreadful - But really I'm not actually your friend, but I am...

There are spray paints available which are safe to use on skin... as for body painting I do it quite regularly, but not for sexual reasons rather because I'm do live role-play and one of my characters is a mad celt covered in woad (not real woad though because that stains like a b*st*rd)


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3850

Kerr_Avon - hunting stray apostrophes and gutting poorly parsed sentences

No, it doens't Potholer, but that may be someone's perception of it.

smiley - ale


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3851

Merdo the Grey, the parton of fuzzy thinking

morality of body-painting is an interesting discussion. Body painting is probably as old among humans as andy other form of body decoration.

My first respons to the question of "when is it immoral to paint another consenting body?" would be "can it possibly be immoral to paint a body when the person involved is consenting"

Interesting to think at body paint may very well have first arisen as a religious act of respect for the dead.

Is it moral or immoral to paint a dead body?

lots of interesting questions here ...


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3852

Edward the Bonobo - Gone.

I think maybe we're struggling to grasp what might have been behind Dealer's question.

Yes, I suppose that according to some, warped, artificial systems of morality, body painting may well be considered immoral - for example in cultures where an outrageous panic can be started by the exposure of an entertainer's breast during the transmission of as sporting event.

But in no sane culture is nudity or related states (is a painted body still nude?) any longer treated as immoral, any more than are exposed piano legs.

(btw - the well-known fact that the Victorians put covers on piano legs is a folk myth. In fact, the Victorians were a raunchy lot in many was, as evidenced by much of their art. It was the early 19thC *Americans* who covered piano legs.)


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3853

Mother of God, Empress of the Universe

Those nekkid piano legs opened the gates of debauchery and led the way to the popularity of guitar-based rock-n-roll, and from there we've fallen into a state of total perdition via an impromptu exposed female breast on prime-time tv. *Now* I can see how the USA has become such a morally bereft country.


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3854

Edward the Bonobo - Gone.

smiley - musicalnoteKeep on rockin' in the free worldsmiley - musicalnotesmiley - smiley


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3855

[...]

So why were these piano legs covered then?


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3856

Edward the Bonobo - Gone.

Have you no shame...they were *legs*! Anyone knows that a young man will be reduced to the vapours and a young woman's sap will rise at the merest suggestion of an unclothed limb! And/or vice versa.


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3857

Edward the Bonobo - Gone.

And have you never wondered why, in the US, male chickens are called 'roosters'? True!


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3858

[...]

True but one must enquire as to its practical purpose.


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3859

Arnie Appleaide - Inspector General of the Defenders of Freedom

General painting - perhaps it would be immoral to paint something that encourage harm of others? How propaganda artists who worked for the third reich? Were they being immoral in their paintings?

How about painting or marking another person in order to make discrimination against them easier?


The Moral Majority Strikes Again again

Post 3860

Montana Redhead (now with letters)

>>How propaganda artists who worked for the third reich? Were they being immoral in their paintings?<<

I can't think of a specific painter, but what about Lili Reifenstahl? She's hailed as a great director artistically, but her politics, well...when you make "Triumph of the Will" that rather begs the question. But after a bit, she was seen as someone who furthered the goals of the art, rather than the goals of the politics.


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more