5/2/07

American Conservatism...

America never ceases to amaze me when it comes to its conservatism. This especially rings true when it comes to the viewing of the human body in its most natural form: nude. While searching for books illustrated by Maurice Sendak, the author and illustrator of Where the Wild Things are, this wonderful illustration of a young boy riding in a bread-dough airplane came up. This illustration is obviously not the controversial image to which this blog refers; but in the book, the young boy is awakened in the middle of the night and begins to float. While floating, his pajamas fall off and he remains nude for the vast majority of the story. When this book was first published in the 1970s, after the sexual revolution, librarians were painting diapers and drawing shorts on the boy in the book because some found a nude child to be obscene. According to Wikipedia, this book later went on to become #25 on the list of the most 100 most controversial books list because of the nudity. Now, I don't have a problem with people finding a nude child in a children's book as offensive. However, anyone with children know that most children enjoy the freedom of being clothes-free at any given moment in time. As a country that claims to have moved past the Victorian era view of the human form, I find that few Americans embrace how beautiful and innocent a child, in his most natural state, can be.

3 comments:

RakeFighter said...

…and this is why we have to bring up the fact that there is a dress code in the office.

hayden said...

Your words here are eloquently stated, Cortni. And I know that millions of perverts, sex offenders, child predators and Catholic preists around the world agree with your point!

Seriously though, wouldn't you agree that having your child running naked around your house is different from illustrations of nude children in children's books? Call me a prude, but I just tend to think that certain things belong behind closed doors...certain things should be private and stay private.

I should also say that naked kids are different from naked babies, in my mind. Who doesn't think a marshmallowy naked baby is cute?

sheltonfamily said...

My views on life are slanted since I am a Christian and a woman of science. However I tend to believe that both sides of my view are in harmony with one another. Meaning that God provided us with a body for our spiritual being to express ourselves...It is merely a body! God wanted us to love our bodies and not be ashamed of being naked as He first created us in the bible. However it is sin that makes us ashamed. As it is sin that makes men and woman take advantage of the innocence of being naked.

As for the illustrations, I have not seen them. Yet I would tend to believe that an illustrated picture of a nude boy is not considered porn, nor could it illicit the same response from a pedifile as a real picture of one does. If it did, then pedifiles would be satisfied with drawing stick figures and getting their jollies from them.

With that said, Thank you for this subject. I always like to discuss topics that obviously created conflict!

Love you!