Sorry why aren't you surprised? Is there something naughty about washing feet?
There are many, many situations where depicting a famous historical figure in a degrading, subservient act would be inflammatory or offensive. In fact, that's probably the default situation, imagine the reaction to any of the following images: The prophet Mohammad cleaning a toilet. Martin Luther King Jr shining a shoe. Mahatma Ghandi giving a massage to a British officer.
The unique or novel aspect of Christian lore, is that that was the whole point. Jesus famously washed the feet of "lesser" people, despite being the son of God, as a parable to teach the lesson that privileged, powerful and important people should dedicate themselves to service to the less fortunate.
The interesting situation here is an AI guardrail against "Don't show an important historical leader doing a degrading act" going against "this particular leader, did this degrading act as a central dogma lesson to his followers, and it has been a central part of writing and art about them for centuries thereafter"
My second prompt attempt was a pretty decent example with him riding on a pimped out lawnmower.
"It's complicated." - Quentin Tarantino.
Not complicated,stupid.
> "It's complicated." - Quentin Tarantino.
"Indeed." - Dan Schneider
So, I guess my question remains the same. Feet are sometimes sexualized. So what?
A: What’s naughty about feet?
B: they are sometimes sexualized.
This doesn’t answer the question. I don’t see how it follows from one to the other. Sometimes hands are sexualized but hands are not naughty. Why do feet get special treatment here?