EROTIC SPINTRIA

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

@GDJMSP
I apologize for my last post.

 

Yet depictions of rape are permitted.

 

I too am somewhat appalled by the censorship here. The context for ancient erotic art works is very different from our own and it seems suspect to me to evaluate them as though they were pornography.

I'm sorry, but this logic is absurd. Your definition of erotiscm is clearly predicated on some kind of assessment of what you find arousing (not appropriate for this board) and completely unrelated to the facts of the work in question. Whether or not you are "open minded" has nothing to do with the piece itself, and the fact that you "don't like it" doesn't make it not erotic. Erotiscm isn't simply in the eyes of the beholder--as you seem to think--but in this case an actual description of the content of the work.

Again, placing your modern (and imho pretty offensive value judgement) on this work is incompatible with any kind of real study of the past.

I've linked to two of the two most interesting and famous pieces of ancient homoerotic art (for the moderators-- I hope that these links are acceptable; these articles would be sfw in nearly any context)

edited

I think it is interesting that the Warren Cup is displayed prominently in the British Museum, where it is contextualized with a wealth of information.

On the other hand, if one were to travel Tarquinia (I have), you might find that though the few tombs with erotic artwork are the most studied and historically important, they are inexplicably closed off-- despite being among the relatively small number of tombs that have been renovated for public visits (~20 out of ~100 if memory serves).

These show very different approaches to historical erotic work: either silently censor work you anachronistically find offensive, or seek to explain, appreciate, understand, and contextualize. It is very clear to me which is the right approach.

 

I guess some of us feel different about these issues. I'm sure some agree with you and others don't. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I have no further comments

 

Again, my point is that this isn't actually a matter of opinion. The dictionary definition of erotic is two part:

"1.arousing or satisfying sexual desire:
an erotic dance.

2.of, relating to, or treating of sexual love;amatory:
an erotic novel."

You are treating it as though it should satisfy the first definition (which as I said I think is inappropriate for this board), whereas it does, in fact, satisfy the second definition.

 

Since membership in coin talk is open to people of all ages and there does not seem to be an adult section I concur with moderators who remove photos. A simple google search will permit these youngsters or these protesting adults to see samples of spintriae or even purchase modern replicas. The current crop of free range parents all seem to be very quick to file law suits if someone else does not protect their little darlings from harm.

 

I’ve had PM contact with CT young numismatists as young as 14. I wouldn’t want my 14 year old granddaughter to see sodomy on a coin.

Steve

 

While I wouldn't myself object against showing spintriae, I'm glad that rules in this forum are strict and clear - against subjects and expressions that may divide coin collectors in politics, religion or in the ways one chooses to live. That makes it easy for anyone to join in discussions about numismatics ('Cointalk') and enjoy each other's interest and coin knowledge without prejudices.

I've seen other forums (and, for instance, Wikipedia) where discussions got tainted and people snubbed or driven away because of political or religious division. No chance for that in Cointalk, I'm thankful for that.

 

@harley bissell @Stevearino To both of your points: The world, and the internet, abound with content and imagery more lewd and offensive than these spintriae, which 14 year olds will inevitably run into. Rather than pretend that spintriae, in particular, don't exist I think it would be much more helpful to use them to teach, study, and learn. As I said earlier it is a mistake to conflate these works with pornography--though they may still be explicit.

@Pellinore I tend to agree with you, except that in this case the items in question are so crucially a part of "numismatics" that I think it is limiting to be unable to discuss them frankly.

 

What are your thoughts on archaic tetradrachms from Thasos? Are they "appropriate" for this board?

 

They probably do violate the rules but have largely gone unnoticed so far, probably because the title of the post wasn't something like "EROTIC SPINTRIA" so the "offended" brigade saw no reason to go look at a thread that might offend them.

 

I was still half asleep when I opened it up at 5:40 am... I incorrectly read the title as "Exotic Sinatra" .. I though it was about old Blue Eyes!

 

Absolutely, your house, your rules. As far as I can see, no one has disputed that this is a privately-owned and administered board where any discussion of "free speech" rights is simply irrelevant. Maybe I missed something though; please cite any posts to the contrary.

I can't help but wonder however where you might draw the line. If CT members of "strong religious beliefs" object to the blatant glorification of paganism on many ancient coins, will that discussion and those coins be deemed "inappropriate" as well? What some of us find truly "offensive" in the present dispute is the not-so-hidden homophobia underlying it, which takes it as given that "normal" heterosexual encounters depicted on ancient coins--no matter how violent and non-consensual--can be "safely" discussed and illustrated here, but consensual sexual encounters between two men (or, presumably, two women) cannot be shown or discussed here at all.

Phil Davis

 

"And we don't care what any of you think."
-Coin Talk Moderator

I have stayed out of commenting one way or the other here out of respect for the views of my fellow CT friends. But after reading this need to say something.

It is jarring to have a moderator be so uncouth and frankly rude to the contributors to the community they are moderating. I greatly enjoy the knowledge that is shared here but statements like this are an embarrassment to CT.

 

As someone who has run afoul of the rules several times (without knowing but ignorance is not excusable) I think the rules and moderation here are summed up in this way (and my comment is not intended negatively, just to put it into perspective): CT is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Follow the rules or leave or be censored. Simple. So I try my best to live within the rules. Doesnt matter if I disagree or not, it is not within my control.