OT PESO - NSFW Apparently!

ann sanfedele 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 
now)...

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.

ann

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  
>>> that
>>> freedom of expression? Political correctness is out of control.
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> 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
>> censor!)..."
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> cheers,
>> frank
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML at pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_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
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> follow the directions.
>






More information about the PDML mailing list