Snooping, eh?
Well, what should one do? Various immediate emotional reactions (see other answers here) will probably arise, but these are too often a poor basis for action.
Were your parents actually young once, like you? Are they still, today in their greater age, humans with a history of experience of various kinds, albeit rather longer than yours? Are all people (any age) subject to the realities of biology, inevitably and continuously? Those we regard as physically ideal are either quite fortunat4e in their genes, or disciplined in taking care of themselves (exercise, diet, etc), or able to afford the surgical intervention to do the various things needed to look more like some ideal physical type. Most people, both you and your parents included, fit into none of these categories; reality is so dissapointing, isn't it?.
If the answer is yes to these questions, or even a few of them, you'd be ill-advised (even by yourself) to immediately react on the basis of an initial emotional reaction. If the photos are your property (inherited, for instance) than you may do as you wish including destroy them. Ethically, you're in a poor position to make them public, or more likely, to share them with friends and family given the probable reactions from the Mrs Grundys and self-appointed propriety/morals police amongst us, religious or otherwise. Or even the official police amongst us.
For youngsters in this situation, now is a chance to exercise some good judgement, something youth is a time for learning about. Take the opportunity of finding the photos to grow up a little; you'll find the world is hardly an ideal pristine place with clear motives and sensible actions, amongst humans and otherwise. Consider just advertising. Take a look around with open (not habituated and innured and oblivious) eyes. There are magazine covers (eg, Cosmo and most of the rest of the women's magazines in the US; elsewhere, eg Europe, it's just about ubiquitious) and of course magazine content (men's magazines for instance) which flaunt idealized bodies, many nearly nude. Everyone of those is someone's kid, and most likely, will be someone's parent. Should we all be horrified at this? Perhaps so, but a review of some attempts at controlling this sort of thing in the past have been, well... unacceptable by quite a few other, also important, criteria.
In fiction, you might consider George Orwell's work as an example of the problems which may be inherent in controlling thought and behavior. Animal Farm is funny, and so an easy read, but when some animals views are more equal than others, trouble ensues. Topically, you might consider Iraq under Saddam, a racist thug if there ever was one. It was apparently easy to be condemned to torture and execution -- a suspicion of anti-Saddamism was enough. Large mass graves have been discovered and some dug up since Saddam was toppled. Whether what's going on now was a reasonable way to go about dealing with such a regime is another issue, and whether the US administration conjured up the whole thing for (revenge, misguided neo-con policy enactment, stupidity, or because it was entirely correct) is something else again. 1984 is a rather darker, but also less allegorical, account of such a regime. And then there was Pol Pot, whose Khmer Rouge summarily imprisoned and executed millions for being able to read or wearing glasses. China has decided that an obscure sort_of_religious, sort_of_meditative, sort_of_exercise_as_ritual, group, the Fallon Gong (sp?), is a threat to the very existence of the state and has been waging a long prison time campaign against them. Apparently because the group managed to mount a silent, non-violent protest at the housing estate of most of the Chinese rulers (quite isolated from the common run of neighborhoods if I understand correctly). And so on.
You may be interested in an a couple of earlier campaigns against literature. In Shakespeare's own time, his drama company was invovled in a (poorly understood now) conflict with the licensing authorities and possibly came close to being dissolved. It had happened to other drama groups. Later on, Bowdler and his sister, prepared cleanup versions of Shakespeare by leaving out the unacceptable bits. Various campaigns (on the PC 'left' and the not so PC 'right') have been waging campaigns against one or another of Mark Twain's works. This last is mostly a US issue, as was Anthony Comstock, a next to illeterate crusader (and an official one) against something or other. He seized and destroyed a large amount of stuff (some real pornography, some less obviously so) over a lifetime. The US Supreme Court has grappled with this urge to control and prohibit many times, with one Justice famously saying, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
Or, another US experience, there was a nationwide attempt to cure at least some of the ills of society by prohibiting alcohol. This led, people's thirst being not so easily controlled, to widespread crimininality and gave a large boost to organized crime with which the US is still attempting to cope, nearly a century later.
So, you can see that the urge to be horrified and To Do Something About It, has a history, when seen in a context larger than your parents' supposed photos. As Justice Potter Stewart found, it's not an easily solved problem.
2006-06-30 05:03:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by ww_je 4
·
0⤊
0⤋