A couple of years ago there was a bit of a ruckus about a photograph on an art exhibition in the Netherlands. The photo depicted a nude man (the artist himself), carrying his young son on his shoulder, and sporting an erection.
After a short while the photograph was removed from the exhibition. I've seen it, and I agreed with the decision of the gallery owner: it was far too sexual in nature.
I have no desire to see art like that anywhere.
(By the way, the OTHER photographs by this same artist were quite artistic and interesting, IMO).

In the same period there were posters for sale depicting a nude young woman lifting a naked baby. The atmosphere was completely different: the image was clearly about the love between mother and child.
I have no problem whatsoever to view artwork like that.

Both of these images would be forbidden on just about every site I can think of. As far as I know, both images could get their owner in trouble in the US. Which would be justified in the first case, but totally ridiculous in the second case.

While blanket rules are easy to write up and (relatively) easy to enforce, they don't do justice to anything.
The "advantage" of blanket rules is that you don't have to think anymore. Just apply the rules, and you know whether what you're doing is acceptable or not. Blanket rules eliminate the need for personal responsibility, they eliminate the need to THINK.

It is a sad thing that so many people prefer the ease of blanket rules to the freedom and responsibility of thinking for themselves.

THAT"s what I don't like about blanket rules.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff