this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
30 points (89.5% liked)

Historical Artifacts

1431 readers
2 users here now

COMM MOVED TO !historyartifacts@piefed.social

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've received several complaints about this. Whatever your opinions on non-sexualized nudity, it would be appreciated if you marked it NSFW simply to avoid the issue.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In the late Middle Ages, such images often were the focus of altar decoration at Christmas, and documents reveal that nuns frequently were given such sculptures by their families upon taking monastic vows.

if it's safe for nuns, if it was used as "altar decoration at Christmas" in late middle ages, something must be wrong about people complaining about this in 2025!

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

It's not about whether nudity is fine. It is. It's about whether images of naked children should randomly show up at work on people who are browsing Lemmy's computers. Not safe for work doesn't mean it's morally bad or anything, it just means it's not safe to be seen at work.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In the Middle Ages, Christ's foreskin was also considered an appropriate holy relic.

Standards change with the times.

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Should probably mark this nsfw

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)