America has a really twisted definition of obscenity. It seems to mean anything having to do with sex. Women’s breasts have been turned into sex toys by the porn industry, so even the natural act of nursing a baby is considered obscene. I think dehumanization is obscene.
You don’t want to look at this, do you? Facebook doesn’t want you to look at it, either. This beautiful child doesn’t look anything like the dangerous hardened “terrorists” we’re reminded of each and every day by our media to justify our war machine. Most of their photos give us a sanitized, rehearsed, and scripted glimpse of war, not the reality of the the actual horrors.
Those profiting from war don’t want you to look at photos like this either. That’s why photojournalists, who try to show us what war is really like, are always murdered in record numbers during wartime. I found a few links to some statistics that showed me that this has always been the case throughout the history of wars.
What I want to know is: Why isn’t war included in the definition of obscenity? A woman breastfeeding a child in public violates obscenity laws but children starving in public don’t? The most tragic thing about this is that it has become accepted. Pictures much like this one were published online in 2014—only the country was different. In 2014, Syrian children were being starved to death. Today, it’s Yemeni children.
Has dehumanized become synonymous with civilized? It seems obvious to me that it’s not possible to dehumanize another without dehumanizing yourself. That’s as true of societies as it is individuals. I’ll never vote for another politician who is in favor of starving children to death to make the people of another country accept an installed puppet dictator.
Photo credits: www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/world/syria-children-dying-hunger/
One thought on “Redefining Obscenity”
I agree war is obscene.
In Ontario, Canada women have been allowed to go topless since 1996 (in public spaces). Breastfeeding is allowed basically anywhere.