OT PESO - NSFW Apparently!
annsan at nyc.rr.com
Sat Oct 31 18:21:58 EDT 2009
well I wrote David off list but I can't resist commenting here...
Frankly, I don't like the photo on any level... but if David shot it for
a very specific reason for the model, that's a different thing.
The plain fact is I'm guessing that the reason it got booted or refused
or whatever was because her hands were too close to her yoni - in
combination with her provacative come hither look ( the puns will start
I have a friend who sells what you might call artistic nudes and a bit
of explicit stuff as well and even under the qualification
of "adult verification required" listings the absolutely forbidden
content is hands on anything um "down there"
This isn't a matter of "political correctness" in my view either. It
bothers me that she looks pregnant, as well.
P N Stenquist wrote:
> "Sexist" has negative implications. And to describe an artful photo
> like the one Savage presented as "sexist" is political correctness
> run amok. But that's my opinion, and you are entitled to yours.
> No offense, I still love you:-)!Paul
> On Oct 31, 2009, at 4:27 PM, frank theriault wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:10 PM, paul stenquist
>> <pnstenquist at comcast.net > wrote:
>>> I didn't see Savage's photo as demeaning in any way. The model was an
>>> attractive lady and was presented as such. The rendering and pose were
>>> artful. Is it wrong to enjoy the beauty of her figure? Many take
>>> pleasure in
>>> a beautiful face and nice hair. Should she cover those as well? She
>>> apparently chose how she wanted to be portrayed. Should we deny her
>>> freedom of expression? Political correctness is out of control.
>> Please read what I said.
>> I didn't use the word demeaning, Bruce did (in response to my post).
>> I said it was sexist. I didn't say it was wrong or bad (although I do
>> have opinions in that regard which I'll not get into). I didn't say
>> that you shouldn't enjoy it. I didn't say that David (or anyone else)
>> shouldn't post it. As a matter of fact, if you go back two posts I
>> ~very specifically~ said: "I'm not saying that I'm offended or that
>> such photos ought not be posted (far be it from me to be a
>> I said that it isn't "my thing", but I didn't try to say what anyone
>> else should or shouldn't like or post.
>> As for your argument that because we don't cover beautiful hair or
>> faces and therefore we ought not cover cover beautiful bodies, well,
>> I'm not the one who says that we can't walk about in public without
>> clothes. You know very well that the issue isn't beauty, it's about
>> what society says is obscene or lewd.
>> I'm no prude, but I try to be sensitive to certain issues - including
>> the fact that women have been objectified and portrayed in ways that
>> men rarely are. I don't like it when it involves men, but due to our
>> history, I'm much more sensitive when it happens to women.
>> This isn't about Political Correctness - I'm just articulating my
>> opinion. You're entitled to yours, and I think no more or less of
>> anyone whose opinion isn't in accords with mine - including you and
>> all my friends on this list.
>> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML at pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>> and follow the directions.
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML at pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
More information about the PDML