Totally on point! wrote on Dec 30, 2007 11:33 PM:When we have a government that says we must make war to make peace, we must lie so we can make war, we must break promises to be powerful, and we must pay taxes so we can harm people, why wouldn't we agree that we must eliminate nudity to create sanity! It all makes sense, don't you think?

john wrote on Dec 31, 2007 4:18 AM:At last!

it makes a change to see someone speaking a bit of common sense. Well said Mr. Van Doom.

Warner: wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:04 AM: Hold on there - some bodies are graceful and beautiful and a great many are not. But of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is reasonable to expect parents to control their children according to their beliefs. And turning the TV off is one method. Keeping the children out of certain art galleries is another. Now let us consider the rights of the individuals involved. First - the owner of the art gallery. His right to display what he sees fit in the window of his gallery can be found in Amendment IX of our constitution which states, "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefore, it is fair to say that he is exercising his Constitutional right to put the picture in the window of his gallery. Second - the parent. He is exercising his constitutional right to walk down the street without being presented with pictures of a man private parts. And of course, everybody can exercise there rights unhampered until they start to deny other persons their rights. And there is the rub - and I assure you that this is not the first time this rub has presented itself. I see the results of the same rub every time I drive my daughter to the doctor in Point Loma. I see quite a few bars where the words "NUDES INSIDE" are advertised on signs outside. We know what is inside, but the owners are not displaying there nudes in the windows. I can bet with confidence that the subject has been before our courts many times and that there are a great many presidencies for the subject, and laws already cover it. It is our job within society to draw the line for right and wrong and I am sure that line has already been drawn. There are some of us that can not look at a situation and determine right and wrong, and that is the reason those lines have to be drawn for them, and there is nothing wrong with that. Everywhere we turn there is a set of rules laid down and methods of over turning them. But I'm sure you will find the ones concerning this subject hard and fast. Have the man display his nude pictures inside and put a sign outside stating NUDE ART OF A MAN'S PRIVATE PARTS INSIDE.

Where else wrote on Dec 31, 2007 12:20 PM:I don't recall any other ART galleries posting nude pictures outside their building. This artist and gallery are using the FREE SPEECH as a beard to hide their desire to gain public attention.

mary wrote on Dec 31, 2007 12:32 PM:Good, intelligent column. God's Masterpiece (the body) is perfect and should be treated as a temple. It's warped, ignorant, hypocritial people who perpetuate shame and guilt on the subject. I feel sorry for their kids. These are the ones who shower in clothes at the gym and later change in closets!

Melora wrote on Dec 31, 2007 3:24 PM:This is one of several Van Doorn articles that I have read lately where I've smiled and said, "Bravo!" Thank you, Mr. Van Doorn, for giving this reader some peace of mind by reading commentary that makes sense and gives me hope. Since it's New Year's eve, I wish Observer peace and health in the new year.

Carter: wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:23 PM: Dear mary and Melora - I think you could observe the picture inside as well as from the sidewalk outside, or maybe you are afraid to go inside. The only thing wrong with viewing the pictures through the window from the sidewalk is you might draw a crowd wanting to discuss the subject matter. And I think you would find the opinion out there spilt about 80/20 on where the picture should be located. Of course a mixed crowd out there on the sidewalk would never do. Who was having the more fun would really depend on who was more glib rather than the gender split or the quality of the picture or of the, uh, picture. anyway, thanks for commenting.

Chris wrote on Jan 1, 2008 5:28 AM:To the person called Warner: there's a huge difference between advertising nude dancers and showing artwork of nudes. The dancers are there to provide a sexual thrill, the art is there for art's sake.

The gallery owner should certainly be allowed to place his artwork in the window and if someone doesn't want to see it, they can look away and if they wish for their children to not see it, they can choose to not bring their children to the area. This fear of nudity is absurd. Attempting to put tight restrictions and controls on everyone's life in the name of "the children" is going to have us living in some closed off intolerant society. BTW, the children probably couldn't care less about the nude artwork.

Ron wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:05 AM:Well put John:
I don't see the hang up. Americans or shall I say the Neo-Christian segment of America thinks its their duty to say whats right and wrong, and this is just another example of this.

Nudity is not a sin; I don't see any commandment that say "Thou shalt not be naked", furthermore, America seems to be the only place people are hung up about it. Nudity is widely excepted in most European countries.

So I say to Zachary Stark, get over it. It's a work of art, nothing more or less. Bottom line is kids are not hung up on nudity, Nut job parents are, and the sooner they start worrying less about other people and start looking at themselves a better world this will be.

george wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:32 PM:Please tell me. What irrevocable harm would befall a healthy child to see an image of a nude adult or even the real thing?

Bruce wrote on Jan 7, 2008 10:06 AM:Thank you. Nice to see a thoughtful considered opinion concerning nudity, rather than the hell and brimstone so common in the news business. American children, and adults for that matter, suffer from a lack of nude body exposure, not an excess of it.

Were womens breasts and genitals of both genders taken as common facts of life, rather than tittilating and/or obscene...we would have a much healthier society. Children don't need protection from nudity, they need education about humanity and biology. They need to learn to appreciate the human body...not commercialize it.
Thank you.

Malcolm wrote on Jan 7, 2008 1:56 PM:We must not allow adult prejudices to harm children. The research evidence is quite clear. Prudery is harmful to children. Conversely there is no objective evidence of harm. Don't believe me? Just compare the teenage pregnancy figures, the abortion rates, the age at first intercourse of prudish countries such as the USA or UK with those of places like Denmark or The Netherlands.