General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Is This Photo Deeply Offensive?
The photo in question was my chosen pic for an article I wrote about, among other things, the selling of sex. The site removed the piece and banned me for a week, then sent me a not-safe-for-hurt-feelings email saying the photo was deeply offensive and soft-core porn, and that I ought to be ashamed of myself for placing it on a respectable, liberal site. They threatened me with permanent blockage if I ever tried such a stunt again, even in jest.
And I just thought the photo illustrated my satiric point.
Before I try and figure out the answer, let me post the entire photo, not just the cropped version used for this piece. This is your official warning, so you might want to lock the kids in the closet, close the curtains, hide the bibles, keep the smelling salts handy, and chain yourself to something secure so you dont throw yourself out the window or jump into oncoming traffic.
Okay, Ive done my part, so here it is, the whole thing. Ready, set
look!
The model in the photo is gay country-singer heartthrob Steve Grand, and, as you can see, its titillating. It screams sex and was designed to showcase Grands obvious assets.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58ebb637e4b0ea028d568b80?
Let's see how this liberal site reacts.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What is it you are asking, "Why is this photo offensive to some random person somewhere on another site?"
I have a friend who does not like potatoes. Should I ask DU why my friend doesn't like potatoes?
William769
(55,124 posts)Sorry, I am not understanding what you are asking.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Your OP is entitled "Why is this photo deeply offensive?"
Someone at some other website found the photo to be offensive. Did you try asking them why, instead of a bunch of random other people?
There is someone, somewhere, who would find a picture of any given thing to be offensive. Is that a surprise of some kind?
William769
(55,124 posts)I am not the author.
Am I the only one here who posts articles from other websites?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So, the entire OP is copied from somewhere else? Is that correct?
I have more of a problem with copyright infringement than pictures of people in various states of undress. Did the author give you permission to post it here?
But I guess the normal assumption with an OP subject line which asks a question is to believe that the person posting is asking a question. Silly me.
William769
(55,124 posts)If that's not good enough for you then take it up with the DU Admins.
Have a nice day.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)Your post is exactly like so many others on DU. You used the title from the linked article and quoted the amount of the article that is acceptable on DU.
Then, you got lambasted for doing exactly the same thing as everyone else does. The whole thing pretty much proves the theme of the linked article. We, as a society, still are so white-male dominated in our thinking that it offends to have white males treated as sex objects the way we treat women. Especially when that is a homoerotic treatment.
Old habits and prejudices really do die hard.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)No, serious question. i dont see anyone bothered in the slightest by "white males treated as sex objects the way we treat women"
What I DO see is a few folks trying to make the narrative here about anything except what it obviously is:
censorship versus people who arent hung up consenting adult nudity and sex-- of any gender or orientation.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)However, the rather strident reaction by others about copyright law and so on seemed a bit over the top. Especially considering that the OP respected the norms here on DU.
If people read the actual article rather than just making comments on it they might understand that it was about how there is an obvious double-standard for showing male sexuality, especially the possibly homoerotic kind vs. showing female sexuality.
I believe you are the one who referred to others as "old an cranky."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)DU skews pretty old for the interwebs, demographically speaking. Stick around, you'll pick up on it.
But you'll also notice that it's the same people who are bent out of shape by the homoerotic sexuality, as are bent out of shape by the female kind.
tblue37
(64,980 posts)little gray box for your quoted material:
Like this.
That helps prevent people from assuming you wrote the text.
Also, maybe put the link to the original up top rather than so late in a post that covers so much of the page that many won't see the link.
William769
(55,124 posts)tblue37
(64,980 posts)their gray boxes.
Maybe you already knew and are just being gracious, but just because someone has been here a while, that doesn't mean they know all the tricks on DU. I certainly didn't--and am sure I still don't!
William769
(55,124 posts)orleans
(33,987 posts)little lamb
little lamb
i've been around for a long time, i remember we could do something inside brackets but i've long forgotten what to type.
now... what does "blockquote" mean?
on edit: I DID IT! THE GRAY BOX!!! LOL. HOW ABOUT THAT!
i just hit blockquote for the above line. now i'm gonna update to see what it does.
hum.... nothing
unless i need to put in quotation marks?
"mary still has her lamb"mary's mom told this reporter
another edit:
fuck it--i have no idea what blockquote is. but i'm happy to know about the excerpt button.
thanks!
tblue37
(64,980 posts)It looks like this:
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
If you hit "enter" to add a space before the blockquoted text, you get this:
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
You can double blockquote, too:
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
Or you can triple blockquote, with each additional blockquote moving the text further in:
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
orleans
(33,987 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I don't know if I've just forgotten the exact code, or if they've removed the functionality.
tblue37
(64,980 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)
text, just use this HTML tag inside square brackets:font color = "red" font color = "red" [/font] (or blue...)
Then to go back to black use [font color = "red"] /font [/font]inside the brackets.
To enlarge your font, write in brackets
[font color ="red"] font size = "+1" [/font] ( or "+2" or " + "+3"...)
And then, of course, [font color ="red"] /font [/font]to return to normal size.
You need to add[font color ="red"] /font [/font]at the end of the text for each font change you make.
So you can do this:
[font color = "red" font size= "+1" ] words words words[/font][/font]
Or this:
[font color = "blue" font size= "+3" ] words words words[/font][/font]
[font color="00ff00"]Nope--didn't work. (I tried to color that text box.)[/font]
BUT in other places where you can use the HTML tag for the box color, you can use [font color="red"] span style="background=red"[/font] within either angle or square brackets to color the background of your text box. To end that HTML code use [font color="red"]/span[/font]
If the color has a name in HTML you can just write the name, but since not all the colors have a name in HTML, in order to able to use a color that doesn't, we have to use hexadecimal codes.
Here is a site with web safe hexadecimal codes for many colors:
http://html-color-codes.com
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but I tried it before in a futile attempt to show off, and it didn't work.
orleans
(33,987 posts)or at least i am
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Fuck, where???
nocalflea
(1,387 posts)How very diplomatic of you.You can swear all you want on DU , but god forbid , if you use irony, sarcasm , etc. and don't label it as such.
One person's sensitivity is another person's joke.
DU , where the humorless and uber- sensitive go to "alert , alert , alert ".
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Worse, now that we're in a reality where the normal day-to-day is increasingly indistinguishable from satire, bad spy novels, and nightmarish drug trips gone very, very wrong.
nocalflea
(1,387 posts)So what kinda drugs you talkin about ? (Joke).
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)4 full years of the DTs, know what I'm sayin
nocalflea
(1,387 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Chellee
(2,086 posts)Maybe it's the blandness? Have you asked your friend if they added salt? Salt makes things less bland. Even potatoes.
I hope I've helped.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)That is a potato in his underwear?
Chellee
(2,086 posts)I certainly hope not.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)There is no audio. How can I tell how well he sings?
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Laf.La.Dem.
(2,936 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)Pachamama
(16,874 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)He has several music videos out and is touring.
I never thought I'd live to see the day of a OUT male Country singer.
Different Drummer
(7,532 posts)Thanks for posting the video!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As a genre i'm more partial to alt-country (steve earle, jay farrar, etc) than straight up modern country, but I respect what this dude is doing, here.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)I hate that he is gay, cause I am a woman, he is hot...AND I am a liberal!
LeftInTX
(24,554 posts)All the good ones are taken in one way or another!!!
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Beakybird
(3,329 posts)You shouldn't have been censored unless children were your target audience.
SpankMe
(2,937 posts)Did you notice there's no flow restrictor on that shower head?! Wasting water is just plain irresponsible. I'm offended.
Do we still have DUzys
William769
(55,124 posts)Really love your user name.
Laffy Kat
(16,356 posts)I'll have to go have another look.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)herding cats
(19,549 posts)lapucelle
(18,039 posts)And, by the way, I find your screen name deeply offensive.
Heartstrings
(7,349 posts)Yes...definitely...water...
Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)Also his dick is bigger than mine.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Good sense of humor.
Laf.La.Dem.
(2,936 posts)Jealousy
greymattermom
(5,751 posts)but the underwear isn't completely opaque, or maybe it's the wet t shirt effect. I'm an Anatomist who has frequented clothing optional hot springs in Colorado, so it's not offensive to me. Are wet t shirts on women deeply offensive?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)at what prompts some people to launch into overly verbose, gibberish-laden defenses of things like censorship.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)I don't find it offensive at all
That dude is hot!
Volaris
(10,260 posts)You have any idea how much work it takes to get abs like that?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)That's sort of important information to leave out. Obviously some things are appropriate for some places and not others.
nolabear
(41,915 posts)Also, is it warm in here?
Also, I don't think it's the hearts that are throbbing.
a kennedy
(29,464 posts)is not appealing for me. Now this guy, https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.8GxSOij6fnEvT03jr8DnogEsDg%26pid%3D15.1&f=1
Or ALL of these guys:
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.8QkhSkVYTn3xbZuXO4AU-wEsDl%26pid%3D15.1&f=1
Laffy Kat
(16,356 posts)I prefer imperfect men with their clothes on. Never got the Chippendale thing.
RobinA
(9,878 posts)Dude in the shower with see-through undies? Zzzzzzz
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)From what you state, their whole issue was with the pic, and not your words. So I'm at a loss.
I would be interested in the other "piece" article) you shared with them.
William769
(55,124 posts)I just thought it a great topic to bring up here.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)msongs
(67,193 posts)waddirum
(976 posts)NewDealProgressive
(98 posts)I'm guessing, in the interest of equally nonsensical (in my opinion) outrage, this must fall into the same category.
melman
(7,681 posts)and right here on this site. It's a tradition.
In fact, if an equivalent pic had been posted of a female model from SI, well you wouldn't see it. Because it would have been removed already.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Oh, man, did some people lose their freaking MINDS over the SI Swimsuit issue, for a good month or so, a few years ago.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Now that I'm a bit older and crankier, fuck it, what's wrong with a woman CHOOSING FREELY to be a swimsuit model ?
Isn't feminism about CHOICE ?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I don't blame them, honestly. Meanwhile other members of this community were practically tripping over their own feet, rushing to one-up each other in terms of condemning in huffy, overblown language the "unacceptable" and "abusive" "hostile" image of the.....
ah, 3 smiling women on a beach.
Hell, you had some folks here making and posting lists of names of anyone who dared to even rec the damn swimsuit thread. No wonder people didn't want to stick their necks out and dare to offer a contrary opinion.
I would challenge anyone to look at the cover, again, and explain why it's any more "offensive" than the one in this thread.
Short answer, it isn't. Actually, neither is offensive. But what's extra funny is all the people protesting about how "people will get outraged over this guy but they'd be okay if it was a scantily clad woman"; not only is that bullshit- I haven't seen any outrage over this picture- but if it was the SI cover it would have been treated like a sitewide DEFCON 5 SORRY DEFCON ONE (see below) crisis.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)So true. I consider myself a feminist with all the right checkboxes ticked. However, this is one thing I will never agree to. If a woman freely chooses, and she's of legal consenting age, to be a swimsuit model, what's the problem ? It's never going to go away and will only get driven underground if anti-modeling becomes the norm.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think if everyone's a consenting adult, both models and country music singers should be free to do whatever they want with their bodies, in front of a camera, etc. Nor should they be shamed for it.
What's funny- and what the pro-censorship people never seem to want to grasp- is that our "oversexualized", "pornified" media-rich environment has brought along with it a total revolution in terms of public acceptance of things like LGBT equality.
I dont think those things are unrelated. I think a society that is less uptight about sex is less uptight about sex.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)You call yourself a Gen Xer, and you don't know your DEFCONs?
It's DEFCON 1! (5 is peacetime)
And yeah, that SI thread and its children were DU at its peak absurdity.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In my defense in the interim we also had this shit, to confuse everything:
greatauntoftriplets
(175,697 posts)csziggy
(34,120 posts)Maybe that is to make up for not having a flow restrictor on the shower head?
skylucy
(3,734 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The rest of us, at least over age 25, it's gotta be boxers.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think they're more like a strip of painter's tape holding up some sort of small mesh pouch.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's a band attached to a mesh pouch. Bet it gets great ventilation, too.
athena
(4,187 posts)No one (except feminists) is disturbed when a woman is displayed as a sex object. Many people, it seems, are disturbed when a man is displayed as a sex object. I suppose it's seen as threatening because it disrupts the accepted order of things.
William769
(55,124 posts)And that needs to change.
athena
(4,187 posts)Thanks for posting it.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Trust me.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #95)
Squinch This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Maybe people are disturbed because its just more evidence that the folks who want to censor sex and nudity in our culture are an increasingly ridiculous and out of touch minority.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)It's the type of photo used to justify objectifying women. It's immature at best. But, more likely simply an exploitive justification for the imagery that perpetuates the sense of entitlement to look, to catcall, to demean women that is displayed in rape culture.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Depending on where their preferences lie.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Any decent photographer can portray beauty without sexualizing the individual. But this photo is suggestive portraying a counterargument to the objection to a believed sense of entitlement to ogle, and discuss, and pursue women sexually without their conscent.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Terribly shocking or surprising or even newsworthy, to most people.
Sex isn't going away, Sexual attraction isn't going away, sexual attraction based upon physical appearance isn't going away- neither is it somehow inherently pathological, nor is there anything on Eris's green earth wrong with it, sorry.
There is nothing inherently oppressive about people being attracted to or looking at pictures of other attractive people, "sexualized" or no. I think it's great that people are turned on by this dude, if that's where their interests lie. Why shouldn't they be? He's hot, he takes care of his body, he obviously wasn't photographed against his consent... I think it's great. Nothing wrong with it at all. Not one god-damn thing.
Beyond that, the post you responded to was positing some flood of progressives somehow bothered by the picture of the guy in the OP who wouldn't be bothered by similar "sexualized" pictures of women.
So where are they? Where's the flood of dudebros outraged by shower package-man up there, who nevertheless hypocritically want to see Emily Ratajowski topless?
Maybe they'll show up later?
But please, in the meantime, explain to me more about how the picture of the showering gay country music singer in his underwear is responsible for rape.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)to be exploited for advertising, or to some other personal end is dehumanizing.
And, it contributes to a mentality that is essentially a norm in the US. Men brag about what they want to do to an average woman walking down the street. Or, the idea that women ask for rape is they dress in a way that arouses men.
You are completely ignoring my point. When women complain about the exploitation that is pervasive in this country, the answer is the presentation of shower guy and, "bbbbut what about the guy in this picture??" Women seek out strippers, too, etc etc. All in defense of an sense of entitlement to catcall and otherwise harrass women.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Although I'm pretty sure he's genuinely interested in the subject matter, and not merely posting it as part of some super-secret plot to normalize the frimzhaddling of fitzwardle flardnerbishitudes or whatever.
I'm not ignoring your point, I am rejecting its central jargon-laden conceit, namely, that any picture of a scantily clad person that sexually arouses another person is somehow guilty of "objectification".
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And have drastically lower rates of things like harassment and rape while simultaneously being far better for women in terms of their equality and rights.
...so.. How do you think that works out in the real world?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)would be put on a "list".
Flaleftist
(3,473 posts)You cropped above the waist, right?
Moostache
(9,895 posts)I can't hold a candle to that dude's ... um, body (offended? nah...jealous as shit? uh, yawp! Reminds me a little of "Fight Club", he looks like I think I should look and he, well...nevermind THAT)... but when people allow their own predilections and hang-ups control them to the point that a photograph triggers a fit of pique, its time to come down off the ledge cause you're hanging on too tightly...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)That's the only thing I can think of. ...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yeah, and religious fundamentalists trying to shoehorn their censorship culture war bullshit under a thin veneer of supposed "progressivism"....
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Liberal means tolerant. Even if the guy was naked, you can click away and just ignore it. The human body is not bad or sinful or disgusting etc etc etc.
Boxerfan
(2,531 posts)I have always thought the typical American sex depiction to be unhealthy in many aspects. And the overseas advertisements are a perfect example.
People have bodies-some are different-OMG.
Not.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)That's always been my stance on "offensive" pictures and speech.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine many people can say "whatever gets you through the night" to racist speech as well. Six of one,. half a dozen of the other.
But of course, we rationalize and excuse good men doing nothing.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)How in the everloving FUCK is that akin to "racist speech"?
I don't expect an answer, of course.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Iggo
(47,487 posts)What I meant to say is "I was amused, not offended, to find that I was knee-jerk attracted to the man in the picture for a split second."
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)Our society practically requires women to be sexualized but some in our society become aghast when men are sexualized in a similar manner.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And it's the same people who don't give a shit.
Very few people, in my experience, are like "Hey, Kate Upton in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue- cool!" And then turn around and hypocritically lose their shit over a buff and oiled package-sportin' male country music singer.
No, it's usually the same people who freak out over the bikinis AND the briefs.
dawnie51
(959 posts)Oh, my! I would never deny something beautiful when I see it
UTUSN
(70,496 posts)This: "This is your official warning, so you might want to lock the kids in the closet, close the curtains, hide the bibles, keep the smelling salts handy, and chain yourself to something secure so you dont throw yourself out the window or jump into oncoming traffic."
Where you have to add a warning, that's an admission something is "off."
But most of all, whether or not a graphic or whatever is really ILLUSTRATIVE (here you're being coy) of your textual context depends on its being INTERRELATED and DEPENDENT on the context. That picture is its own thing, with or without text or "satire" or whatever context, and is more about gratification than anything else. "Offensiveness" is a separate issue (is sex offensive?).
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I don't see what the big deal is.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)I have to give him props because that is walking right into the enemies bar and bringing it to them
William769
(55,124 posts)mcar
(42,210 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)and here I was thinking I was straight.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)feel that most Americans are way to uptight about it.
There's plenty of other things I find much more offensive as a progressive and citizen of Earth than this.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The fact that anyone still has shitfits over sex and nudity in the year 2017 simply boggles my mind.
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)some people are so uptight they must need a crowbar to pass gas.
To me the human body, of any age, shape, race, gender, etc is just another example of Nature's incredible artwork with each being wonderful and worthwhile in its own way (well, except my own but I'm working on that. )
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Honest!
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Demonaut
(8,909 posts)I wear briefs
ornotna
(10,763 posts)Generic Brad
(14,270 posts)He's doing it all wrong!
ornotna
(10,763 posts)Now we're all going to HELL by looking at that photo.
I'm not offended, I'm jealous.
William769
(55,124 posts)But now that I am up in age (I've got the money honey, if they've got the time).
Ok, now I'm definitely going to hell for that comment.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But hell, I dont have any problem with it. Good looking guy. Fit.
Not my bag, but different strokes and all that.
Remember, though, that DU is the same place where some people called the cover of the 2014 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue a "human rights atrocity on par with the Cambodian killing fields"
Some people just have huge-ass meltdowns and tantrums over sex and nudity. Thats why they want to censor things like internet porn and sex scenes on HBO.
Coventina
(26,871 posts)Please tell me no duers compared si to the killing fields.
I have been there.
It would hurt my heart to think duers could make that comparison.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There was a full month-long freakout over the thing.
A now-deceased DU member I was friends with posted a thread about it, exactly as someone had posted a thread about the swimsuit issue in previous years.. for some reason, though, her posting the cover that year set a few people off to a ridiculous degree.
I'm still not sure why- it was the year the cover image consisted of 3 women standing and smiling on a beach; I would find and post the picture, but, even though it's way less explicit than the picture in the OP, here, I'm pretty sure someone would hit the alert button the second it went up..
so, fuck it.
but it was one of those situations where the meltdown it generated became self-sustaining, so for weeks people were arguing about the argument about the argument about the stupid SI Swimsuit cover.
And the hyperbole around the thing just kept getting ratcheted up, like I said. The first thread was bad enough, but the subsequent threads just got more and more insane. Somewhere along the line of calling it a 'disgusting human rights atrocity' I'm fairly certain someone drew an equivalence between the thing and the killing fields, someone else claimed that seeing the "horrific" image of the 3 women smiling on the beach "ruined my entire month", that sort of thing.
Then of course there were the people who claimed that there's no difference between a culture that forces women to wear burqas and one that allows women to wear bikinis...
...I dunno. It was one of many milestones on my road to just not taking this place nearly as seriously as I once did.
Coventina
(26,871 posts)I am an ardent feminist, but of all the issues facing women, the SI bathing suit issue is eye-roll level at best.
I must have been on one of my extended breaks from DU to have missed that.
I'm glad I did.....
I probably would have been banned.
Visiting Cambodia was one of the most profound experiences of my life and I would NOT tolerate a comparison like that without the strongest language I could muster.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)other genocides for my radio show. I would be deeply ashamed if he saw the comparison. It's so far off it is disturbing.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)This place gets a little weird, sometimes.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,320 posts)LOL....shit...
You've been around this board almost as long as I have. To say DU gets "a little weird sometimes" is an understatement writ large.
Want to talk about weird?
I'll leave you with two words;
Moon bombing
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Swimsuit Issuemaggeddon 2014 was like the HUAC/McCarthy era in GD.
betsuni
(25,128 posts)the only thing that came up was you bringing it up a couple of times. In what thread was the original comment? The one with the picture of the swimsuit issue or one about something else? Was it deleted or is it still there?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Of shit-losing over that one picture which, by any rational standard, was certainly no more "offensive" than the one in the OP.
Fact is, neither are offensive. Don't like it? Don't look. Problem solved.
And the human body is beautiful. Full stop, no apology.
But I remember what I remember. I'd ask the person who posted the original SI thread, because she caught a ridiculously inordinate amount of shit over it (the stuff the guy in the OP put up with pales in comparison) but she's no longer with us. Sadly.
In case you haven't noticed, the search function is nothing if not balky. Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. I'm reasonably certain a small group of people lost their shit to a ridiculous degree over that picture, though.
betsuni
(25,128 posts)I remember a few comments about another swimsuit issue that I thought was really funny. Some guys insisted that the model didn't have fake boobs, saying stuff like, "I consider myself a pretty good judge" and "Those don't look like implants" and of course most women who actually have the equipment for that team could tell they were fake, and prove it with a quick Google. I wouldn't dare tell men anything about men's bodies because I'm not on that team, don't have the equipment or experience. I like to listen to people's opinions when I can't know what they know. Learn a lot that way.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:51 AM - Edit history (1)
Like I said, I do remember it. But I'm not invested enough to try and track down the 40 or so threads that stupid fight spawned to prove my point. I fully concede I could be wrong, although I am 100% certain there was some over-the-top hyperbole along those lines thrown out during those fun (cough) times. What the exact wording was, I don't know, and to hunt it via google that's probably what you'd need. Search function on DU would be even worse.
As for the bodies... hell, it's pretty obvious there was probably some photoshop involved; probably more than in the above banana sling picture, although it's also possible photo manipulation has advanced significantly in the intervening years. Still, I remember DU arguing more about butts than anything else. I can't find all the threads, but I can still find the cover itself, and given the layout of the thing, that makes sense.
Now, I do remember going to college with some extremely attractive young ladies, and I think some of the discussion (again, as I remember it) around the SI issue women was "it is physically impossible to have a body like that"- and I suppose one could say the same thing about Cap'm Banana up there...
still, I swear I remember some VERY attractive and fit bodies, from back in those days.
But, then, I also acknowledge that my memory may be questionable.
meadowlander
(4,358 posts)a.) I don't think nudity is inherently deeply offensive, but...
b.) The line of his cock is clearly visible in his underwear which would make this at least R and probably pushing for an X rating in a movie. It would be required to be blurred on network TV.
Depending on where you are posting, it is probably not appropriate without providing a warning that it contains adult material. I don't think it's "deeply offensive" but I think it would be polite to warn people. I wouldn't want my 13 year old niece (who reads Huffington Post) just stumbling on that picture without warning or some kind of age-confirmation barrier. I agree that it crosses the boundary into soft-core porn and that that creates legal liability issues for their website if they aren't doing anything to restrict traffic to it.
Appreciate that you're posting it in the context of an article about sex and advertising, but for me it goes beyond what I would just throw out there without an adult content warning and I think it's probably more graphic than it needs to be to make your point.
oasis
(49,151 posts)would "liberal" like me object?
LeftInTX
(24,554 posts)oasis
(49,151 posts)extend his praise to include the gentleman in this photo.
LeftInTX
(24,554 posts)Figures
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Thing makes sense.
She was in a softcore lesbian photoshoot, for fuck's sake! I dont give a flying fuck, personally... but how the fuck mr. jesusbagger morality in media gets around that shit is simply beyond me.
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)However that batshit crazy anti-Christ snake oil salesman 'did' defend Trump grabbing women by the pussy as "macho talk" and basically said that those of us against Trump are working for 'satan'.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)At his age, he probably isn't allowed by his medical team any sort of "excitement" anyway.
3catwoman3
(23,816 posts)..."excited" is deeply offensive, as well as nausea inducing -
herding cats
(19,549 posts)*franticly fans self* I may need more "evidence" to decide.
Seriously though, people on both sides can be prudes. Human bodies of all shapes and forms can be beautiful works of art, yet many people can't even handle classic art without being offended. It's their problem, and their loss. We should be more evolved, but we're just not. Many people view anything beautiful which is happens to makes them feel sexual thoughts as "bad" or "dirty" still. We're deeply repressed as a culture.
0rganism
(23,855 posts)... who wears their underwear in the shower anyway? DEEPLY OFFENSIVE! TRIGGERED!
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)luvMIdog
(2,533 posts)Guess I'm just a dirty old lady checking out a gay guy package
Docreed2003
(16,817 posts)But humans are funny. What offends me may not offend you and vice versa.
Here's an example: There's a certain GOP politician that has a really embarrassing corn dog picture that shows up in literally every thread this person is named. I've seen that picture so many times and with so many different snarky comments. I made the mistake of posting the animated gif of the picture, which I thought was hilarious, and got my first "hide" here for posting something that was "bigoted or insensitive". Since then, I have seen the picture multiple times posted here. The picture itself must be fine....add an animated corndog and everyone loses their mind.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I know the picture you're talking about.
I've just sort of given up on this place, in that regard. ..all my hides have been for completely ridiculous stuff. And Ive probably gotten away with far worse, not hidden.
Never know.
Docreed2003
(16,817 posts)I have to realize my warped sense of humor tends to take it a step too far at times! Lesson learned!
vi5
(13,305 posts)gay male sexuality and heterosexual female sexuality. 2 things that are viewed as "bad" and offensive in our pathetic regressive society.
Now pictures that appeal to the hetero male libido and sexuality? Have it it.
winetourdriver01
(1,154 posts)Desk top background!
steve2470
(37,457 posts)breast. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime-show_controversy
Puritanism is alive and well in 21st century America.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)When they booked the Red Hot Chili Peppers in 2014 to, and I quote, "appeal to older viewers".
That offended the CRAP out of me, because it made me feel old!
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)which as near as I can tell means "is featured in an image that might turn someone, somewhere, on".
milestogo
(16,829 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)luvMIdog
(2,533 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)He is 100% right and spot on.
Human adult sexuality and the human body- of any gender- is nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing "wrong" or "objectifying" (whatever that means) about consensual, erotic, even graphic displays of the same.
I would add that it's time to drop the pretense that the anti-sex, pro-censorship crowd parroting the rhetoric of Gail Dines- who helped write the 2016 Republican Platform, for fuck's sake- are anything remotely resembling "progressive".
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)good-looking facially straight-on.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"I gotcher one headlight right here"
VOX
(22,976 posts)That banana-hammock is being sorely tested, it'll rattle the repressed male Christianists (a redundancy, I know).
But I've seen racier Guess ads...years ago.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)VOX
(22,976 posts)I recommend club soda and a good book!
kcdoug1
(222 posts)mostly because he has his underwear on.... who does that in the shower?
Warpy
(110,909 posts)I preferred creampuffs who hated the gym and showered bollocky but who understood at least as much math and science as I did...and more was better.
However, I don't consider either beefcake or cheesecake to be porn. This guy's got the pink bits covered and that's kind of the dividing line and even Prunella (or Prunetto) should understand that much.
I hope somebody just got lucky with a bad jury and a mod in a bad mood. This is a site for adults, not the kiddies, and adults can take this stuff, no problem.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)I'm old, but I'm not dead.
melman
(7,681 posts)Have we learned anything more about the alleged site that allegedly had a problem with this?
Just checking.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Why, I think this thread has some potential to expose some real hypocrisy on this board!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)What did you learn, here?