Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?
I wasn't suggesting that Apple was right to do what they did, merely pointing out that its a commercial decision - pretty much the same one Disney makes when it doesn't have topless women walking around with Mickey and Goofy.
While there certainly is a difference between nudity and porn, it is a relatively difficult one to police. There is a certain amount of subjectivity involved. It is far easier to say, "no nudity on display." It is a clear rule everyone understands and is easy (& therefore cheap) to enforce.
It isn't that a half naked woman is immoral. It is that a half naked woman on a cover (indeed on the internet) usually represents or is promoting immorality.
We don't live in a world of theory and idealism. What percentage of nudity on covers do you think is of the NatGeo type vs porn? It is a generalisation, a rule of thumb which holds true in the majority of cases (I suspect including this one) that nudity of covers is designed to trigger a sexual response. Apple know that a lot of their customers don't like that. That doesn't necessarily make the customers bigoted, it might just mean that they dislike advertisers (the cover advertises the book) trying to manipulate them into purchasing using sex. Some people like to keep sex as something special to share only with the person they love. Perhaps they think having advertisers trying to muscle in on their sex life is not something they want from their tablet, or that even just attempting to use sex to manipulate them into buying things is distasteful enough to warrant rejection of the device. Perhaps it is just a question of trust - if Apple don't demonstrate similar attitudes to decorum (ironically, all that is required is a veneer of restraint) as their clientele, they are less likely to be welcomed into their clientele's homes.
As far as childhood innocence goes, I agree that most very small children don't think of nudity as bad. On the other hand, just because children don't see anything wrong, doesn't mean its ok. I don't let my 11-year old walk the city streets naked. Nothing wrong with the human body? True, but that is deliberately misleading. Not everything is appropriate in every situation.
I found my aforementioned 11y.o. daughter (and her 9 year old sister) listening to Pitbull's "Timber" on youtube. She couldn't really make out the words (and hadn't really tried - she just liked the catchy tune). Damaged for life? Of course not. Utterly inappropriate? Most definitely. Even though she doesn't understand the meaning, I wanted it very clear that I disapprove and it isn't allowed. The reason it is banned is not that sex is bad, but because I don't want her to assimilate by repetitive listening, the rapper's attitude to sex. I want her to expect men to be respectful towards women and to be shocked and shun them if they aren't. That will be good for her. The catchy tune and thumping beat tends to switch off critical faculties and that is unacceptable, especially in a child with so much to learn.
Common-place nudity blurs the line between what is acceptable and what is not. In the NatGeo situation, what you aren't told is that often, while going topless is ok, something else (e.g. bare legs) is considered sexually provocative and is absolutely forbidden in those societies. That's not the particular culture I'm in though, so I don't worry about it.
There's nothing wrong with nudity per se, but neither is there anything wrong with defecating per se. Still, I don't want to see adults doing it on the pavement and neither do I want images of it pumped into my tablet where my kids are looking for Enid Blyton books.
I know in IT we strive for consistency, but I am still surprised that so many people fail to notice that life is extremely messy and edge-cases and exceptions abound. Attire for the beach is not right for a royal visit, but then again it might be if there is a volleyball involved and an Olympic committee-blessed judge.
There was a time when we mocked the Americans for their, "in order to liberate the village, we had to destroy it" attitude. Now it seems we have replaced liberal tolerance with militant permissiveness. The issue is not the content of our belief systems, but the viciousness with which we attempt to stamp out opposing viewpoints. We seem to be moving closer to Muslim regimes in trying to enforce everything we think is good and prohibit everything we think is bad. That might be logical with a religion (of the supernatural or political kind) where you are "saved" by how you behave, but not even Christians (should) think that, only with those concerned with controlling the behaviour of others.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
