Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William769

(55,124 posts)
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 02:47 PM Apr 2017

Why 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 don’t throw yourself out the window or jump into oncoming traffic.

Okay, I’ve 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, it’s titillating. It screams “sex” and was designed to showcase Grand’s obvious assets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58ebb637e4b0ea028d568b80?

Let's see how this liberal site reacts.

199 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Is This Photo Deeply Offensive? (Original Post) William769 Apr 2017 OP
People find all kinds of things offensive jberryhill Apr 2017 #1
It was removed and the poster blocked for a week on a liberal site. William769 Apr 2017 #21
Yes, and? jberryhill Apr 2017 #48
The OP is titled from the article. William769 Apr 2017 #49
Are you the only one? No, but it is normal to at least attribute jberryhill Apr 2017 #50
I used DU's 4 paragraph rule with a link to the article. William769 Apr 2017 #52
Wow, Seems you hit Some Nerves bitterross Apr 2017 #115
Who in this thread is offended in that manner? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #122
I Cannot Say What Others Feel, However... bitterross Apr 2017 #136
Oh, yeah, and I stand by that. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #138
If you highlight the text and click the "excerpt" button above the text box, you will get a nice tblue37 Apr 2017 #68
Thank you for your kind response & tip. William769 Apr 2017 #69
You are welcome. It took me a year or more before I figured out how other people were getting tblue37 Apr 2017 #73
You can teach an old dog new tricks. William769 Apr 2017 #74
now i have to try that orleans Apr 2017 #188
If you highlight something and then hit blockquote, it offsets the text. tblue37 Apr 2017 #189
ahhhhh..... very cool. thanks for the example. n/t orleans Apr 2017 #195
I used to know how to make the damn gray box a different color, even. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #190
I don't know how to color the box on DU, but to color your tblue37 Apr 2017 #192
Yeah, there was a way to use the hex codes to change the box color Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #193
i don't know. maybe we're just getting old orleans Apr 2017 #194
I'm certainly too old to wear undies like that in the shower. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #196
You mean there are liberal websites with user communities even MORE old and cranky than DU? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #97
"old and cranky"? nocalflea Apr 2017 #102
Sarcasm is tough, on the internet. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #105
I get ya. But , if you can't take the heat. .. nocalflea Apr 2017 #106
Im just hoping to avoid Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #109
You slay ! - as usual nocalflea Apr 2017 #137
Thanks! Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #185
because penis? snooper2 Apr 2017 #128
people get outraged about the silliest things, don't they? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #172
Potatoes can be bland. Chellee Apr 2017 #82
Ate you saying... GulfCoast66 Apr 2017 #142
LOL Chellee Apr 2017 #143
Obvious assets? guillaumeb Apr 2017 #2
Ah hahahahahahah. . .n/t annabanana Apr 2017 #3
Super funny Laf.La.Dem. Apr 2017 #10
Heres some audio for you. William769 Apr 2017 #20
He is hot....and he can sing Pachamama Apr 2017 #55
That debuted on July 4th 2016 on youtube. William769 Apr 2017 #58
I don't usually like country music, but I have to admit I like that song. Different Drummer Apr 2017 #63
It's not bad! Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #162
Besides being a 'gay country singer' is an oxymoron angstlessk Apr 2017 #4
My thought exactly LeftInTX Apr 2017 #19
Bwah! WinkyDink Apr 2017 #150
He's very handsome Beakybird Apr 2017 #5
OMG!!!! SpankMe Apr 2017 #6
LOL wryter2000 Apr 2017 #17
Love you comment. William769 Apr 2017 #23
For some reason I didn't notice that. Laffy Kat Apr 2017 #32
. Squinch Apr 2017 #53
No, can't say I noticed that at all. grossproffit Apr 2017 #61
Love your reply! herding cats Apr 2017 #86
You win the thread. lapucelle Apr 2017 #103
Hmmmm..... Heartstrings Apr 2017 #123
LOL chia Apr 2017 #135
It's not demonstrating proper shower hygiene Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #7
I can't believe I laughed. JTFrog Apr 2017 #40
Offensive or is it - - Laf.La.Dem. Apr 2017 #8
He's gorgeous greymattermom Apr 2017 #9
oh, you'd be amazed Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #147
As a hetro female TNLib Apr 2017 #11
Pffft..I'm a hetero male and I'd blow that guy, just out of respect. Volaris Apr 2017 #125
LOL TNLib Apr 2017 #131
... Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #182
What was the site? melman Apr 2017 #12
How DARE you. nolabear Apr 2017 #13
I might be in a minority here, but this really does nothing for me, I'm female and this shot a kennedy Apr 2017 #14
Honestly, I kid, but I'm the same way. Laffy Kat Apr 2017 #34
Me Three RobinA Apr 2017 #126
I don't seem to be offended. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #15
That's not my article. William769 Apr 2017 #24
Muscles like that make men/women look like insects. And the photo is not safe for work. KittyWampus Apr 2017 #16
so is his music crummy and he's compensating? msongs Apr 2017 #18
quite adequately it appears waddirum Apr 2017 #174
People go nuts over the SI swimsuit issue on many liberal sites. NewDealProgressive Apr 2017 #22
Yes melman Apr 2017 #25
Exactly. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #77
i hate to admit, i was afraid to comment because of fear of being labelled OMG YOU'RE A SEXIST steve2470 Apr 2017 #164
I know-I knew at the time from my PMs-- A lot of people were bullied into silence during that shit. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #165
"sitewide DEFCON 5 crisis" steve2470 Apr 2017 #166
I dont get it, either. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #167
totally agree nt steve2470 Apr 2017 #168
Ok, now I'm offended... cemaphonic Apr 2017 #179
You are, of course, correct. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #180
He wears underwear to take a shower??? greatauntoftriplets Apr 2017 #26
He's just cutting down on his laundry csziggy Apr 2017 #30
OMG! Thank you for making me laugh right out loud! skylucy Apr 2017 #36
If you've got that body, you're allowed to wear briefs. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #79
Those aren't actually underwear, technically. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #96
no, the gross part is he has streaks on the back side of his underwear snooper2 Apr 2017 #129
Silly, one of the many benefits of that "underwear" is, it doesn't HAVE a back side. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #163
I bet it would have been OK if it had been a woman. athena Apr 2017 #27
Exactly William769 Apr 2017 #28
Agreed. athena Apr 2017 #31
Bingo! nt JTFrog Apr 2017 #43
Oh, totally! Squinch Apr 2017 #51
No, it would have been alerted on. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #95
This message was self-deleted by its author Squinch Apr 2017 #127
I dont see anyone disturbed here. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #76
There it is loyalsister Apr 2017 #108
Or, maybe people just like to look at sexy attractive people of the opposite or same gender Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #110
Why not an attractive image that isn't objectifying? loyalsister Apr 2017 #112
People are sexually attracted to other people, often based upon physical appearance. This isn't Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #113
Sex, sexuality, and sexualizing people into objects loyalsister Apr 2017 #117
You should take it up with the OP, then. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #119
using your logic, cultures that strictly censor images of sex and nudity should be less misogynistic Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #183
no, actually, it would have spawned a month-long outrage, and anyone who rec'ced this thread Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #171
idk Flaleftist Apr 2017 #29
I am past the age of being offended by that... Moostache Apr 2017 #33
I wish I could rec this post. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #184
Why would a liberal site find it offensive? Are they overrun with conservative trolls? AgadorSparticus Apr 2017 #35
DING DING DING DING DING DING Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #81
you nailed it steve2470 Apr 2017 #130
Wrong crowd to find that offensive- Boxerfan Apr 2017 #37
What was the cropped version? Squinch Apr 2017 #38
Whatever gets you through the night. DefenseLawyer Apr 2017 #39
I imagine many people can say "whatever gets you through the night" to racist speech as well. LanternWaste Apr 2017 #41
"Good men doing nothing" about someone deciding of his/her own free will to pose for a sexy picture? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #169
... Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #186
I suppose I could have stated that better. Iggo Apr 2017 #42
I wonder if you had cropped the pic at the navel if the same complaint would have occurred. LonePirate Apr 2017 #44
Except in my experience, at least on "progressive" sites, it's the same people who get upset. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #78
As George Takai would say..... dawnie51 Apr 2017 #45
The part that answers your own question is: UTUSN Apr 2017 #46
We're all adults, here. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #187
Gay country singer...that is NOT a job for the timid FDRsGhost Apr 2017 #47
As a Gay closeted Country music fan, I agree! William769 Apr 2017 #54
He looks like he works out mcar Apr 2017 #56
gee... ya think? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #98
Eye Candy!! lunatica Apr 2017 #57
Huh. OriginalGeek Apr 2017 #59
Nice shower head. grossproffit Apr 2017 #60
I see what you did there. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #151
Personally I don't find nudity offensive and... WePurrsevere Apr 2017 #62
Seriously. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #80
Our puritanical roots run deep. I swear... WePurrsevere Apr 2017 #99
Not me. I'm built just like that dude in the picture. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #100
Well... WePurrsevere Apr 2017 #104
I don't see a problem here. smirkymonkey Apr 2017 #64
Not my thing, but I am not offended. NT Adrahil Apr 2017 #65
mine are larger Demonaut Apr 2017 #66
Mine too ornotna Apr 2017 #71
lol Demonaut Apr 2017 #93
That's not how you shower! Generic Brad Apr 2017 #67
thanks Bill ornotna Apr 2017 #70
I've always hated the term "sugar daddy" William769 Apr 2017 #72
... Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #116
We now know Steve Grand is circumcised. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #75
Please tell me you are kidding Coventina Apr 2017 #88
I wish I was. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #94
Unbelievably insensitive, to compare paid models to the victims of the Killing Fields. Coventina Apr 2017 #133
I have a friend who is a survivor of the killing fields. I interviewed him and survivors of three stevenleser Apr 2017 #145
Exactly. 3 women posing in bathing suits for a magazine isn't a "human rights atrocity" at all. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #148
A LITTLE WEIRD?!? A HERETIC I AM Apr 2017 #175
Hear ya. But at least the Moon Bombing was fun. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #181
When I searched for that Cambodian comment, betsuni Apr 2017 #156
There was a full month of multiple threads. Threads upon threads upon threads. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #157
Oh, I just thought that for the multiple times you referrenced it, you'd remember. betsuni Apr 2017 #158
... in the other post (#88) I said "fairly certain". Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #160
To play Devil's advocate - meadowlander Apr 2017 #83
If Pat Robertson says the beauty of the human body is a-okay why oasis Apr 2017 #84
Pat Robertson said that???? LeftInTX Apr 2017 #89
Pat said nude pix of Melinia Trump are "pure art". Surely he would oasis Apr 2017 #90
Oh Gawd, I thought it was Trump that said it LeftInTX Apr 2017 #91
Pat is so full of shit he's simply hard to take seriously enough to ridicule, if such a Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #111
Umm... Snopes... WePurrsevere Apr 2017 #101
Yeah, that makes more sense. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #114
The thought of Pat Robertson being... 3catwoman3 Apr 2017 #134
Oh. My. Goodness. herding cats Apr 2017 #85
it's offensive because... 0rganism Apr 2017 #87
You can kind of see his peen, I guess. BlueStater Apr 2017 #92
uhmn my eyes were kinda drawn to the package but I'm sure that's my problem hahahaha luvMIdog Apr 2017 #107
I don't find that offensive at all Docreed2003 Apr 2017 #118
I suspect it was the animation that did you in, there, doc Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #120
Lol...i suppose you're right Warren... Docreed2003 Apr 2017 #173
Because it's appeal is to both.... vi5 Apr 2017 #121
hummmm winetourdriver01 Apr 2017 #124
The same people offended by this were offended by the split-second revealing of Janet Jackson's..... steve2470 Apr 2017 #132
The most offensive thing that happened at the Super Bowl Halftime in the past 20 years? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #139
aw :) nt steve2470 Apr 2017 #141
Apparently this man is being "objectified" Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #140
Concealed carry. milestogo Apr 2017 #144
....... JHan Apr 2017 #153
It's the mother of all bananas. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #170
hahahahaha luvMIdog Apr 2017 #178
From the article: Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #146
I'm offended by the silliness of his HAVING CLOTHES ON IN THE SHOWER! ;-) He's actually not as WinkyDink Apr 2017 #149
He looks kind of like an overly buffed Jakob Dylan, to me. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #154
Because Mike Pence could NOT eat alone with that ad. VOX Apr 2017 #152
Mike Pence...alone...the ad.....The mind gags! WinkyDink Apr 2017 #155
Indeed. Sorry for the retch-worthy imagery! VOX Apr 2017 #161
well kcdoug1 Apr 2017 #159
Not really my type Warpy Apr 2017 #176
Nothing's as sexy as a brain, I agree. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #177
Oh baby lillypaddle Apr 2017 #191
So melman Apr 2017 #197
I'm still waiting for the flood of outraged, homoeroticism-traumatized dudebros we were promised Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #198
So what's the verdict, Bill? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #199
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
1. People find all kinds of things offensive
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 02:51 PM
Apr 2017

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)
21. It was removed and the poster blocked for a week on a liberal site.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:18 PM
Apr 2017

Sorry, I am not understanding what you are asking.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
48. Yes, and?
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:18 PM
Apr 2017

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)
49. The OP is titled from the article.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:21 PM
Apr 2017

I am not the author.

Am I the only one here who posts articles from other websites?

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
50. Are you the only one? No, but it is normal to at least attribute
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:24 PM
Apr 2017

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)
52. I used DU's 4 paragraph rule with a link to the article.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:28 PM
Apr 2017

If that's not good enough for you then take it up with the DU Admins.

Have a nice day.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
115. Wow, Seems you hit Some Nerves
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:44 AM
Apr 2017

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)
122. Who in this thread is offended in that manner?
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:33 AM
Apr 2017

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)
136. I Cannot Say What Others Feel, However...
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:03 PM
Apr 2017

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)
138. Oh, yeah, and I stand by that.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:44 PM
Apr 2017

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)
68. If you highlight the text and click the "excerpt" button above the text box, you will get a nice
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:12 PM
Apr 2017

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.

tblue37

(64,980 posts)
73. You are welcome. It took me a year or more before I figured out how other people were getting
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:24 PM
Apr 2017

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!

orleans

(33,987 posts)
188. now i have to try that
Fri Apr 14, 2017, 11:56 PM
Apr 2017
mary had a little lamb
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)
189. If you highlight something and then hit blockquote, it offsets the text.
Sat Apr 15, 2017, 03:15 AM
Apr 2017

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.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
190. I used to know how to make the damn gray box a different color, even.
Sat Apr 15, 2017, 07:59 AM
Apr 2017

I don't know if I've just forgotten the exact code, or if they've removed the functionality.



tblue37

(64,980 posts)
192. I don't know how to color the box on DU, but to color your
Sat Apr 15, 2017, 09:30 AM
Apr 2017

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]

[span style="background:#ff0000;"]Let me try something. . . .[/span]


[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)
193. Yeah, there was a way to use the hex codes to change the box color
Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:43 PM
Apr 2017

but I tried it before in a futile attempt to show off, and it didn't work.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
97. You mean there are liberal websites with user communities even MORE old and cranky than DU?
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:59 AM
Apr 2017

Fuck, where???

nocalflea

(1,387 posts)
102. "old and cranky"?
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:18 AM
Apr 2017

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)
105. Sarcasm is tough, on the internet.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:27 AM
Apr 2017

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.

Chellee

(2,086 posts)
82. Potatoes can be bland.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 11:17 PM
Apr 2017

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.

William769

(55,124 posts)
58. That debuted on July 4th 2016 on youtube.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:36 PM
Apr 2017

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.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
162. It's not bad!
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 07:54 AM
Apr 2017

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)
4. Besides being a 'gay country singer' is an oxymoron
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 02:53 PM
Apr 2017

I hate that he is gay, cause I am a woman, he is hot...AND I am a liberal!

SpankMe

(2,937 posts)
6. OMG!!!!
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 02:54 PM
Apr 2017

Did you notice there's no flow restrictor on that shower head?! Wasting water is just plain irresponsible. I'm offended.

greymattermom

(5,751 posts)
9. He's gorgeous
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 02:56 PM
Apr 2017

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)
147. oh, you'd be amazed
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 12:02 AM
Apr 2017

at what prompts some people to launch into overly verbose, gibberish-laden defenses of things like censorship.

Volaris

(10,260 posts)
125. Pffft..I'm a hetero male and I'd blow that guy, just out of respect.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:44 AM
Apr 2017

You have any idea how much work it takes to get abs like that?

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
12. What was the site?
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 02:58 PM
Apr 2017

That's sort of important information to leave out. Obviously some things are appropriate for some places and not others.

Laffy Kat

(16,356 posts)
34. Honestly, I kid, but I'm the same way.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:38 PM
Apr 2017

I prefer imperfect men with their clothes on. Never got the Chippendale thing.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
15. I don't seem to be offended.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:03 PM
Apr 2017

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&quot article) you shared with them.

22. People go nuts over the SI swimsuit issue on many liberal sites.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:19 PM
Apr 2017

I'm guessing, in the interest of equally nonsensical (in my opinion) outrage, this must fall into the same category.

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
25. Yes
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:23 PM
Apr 2017

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)
77. Exactly.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:49 PM
Apr 2017

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)
164. i hate to admit, i was afraid to comment because of fear of being labelled OMG YOU'RE A SEXIST
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 11:33 AM
Apr 2017

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)
165. I know-I knew at the time from my PMs-- A lot of people were bullied into silence during that shit.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:33 PM
Apr 2017

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)
166. "sitewide DEFCON 5 crisis"
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:37 PM
Apr 2017

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)
167. I dont get it, either.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:50 PM
Apr 2017

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.

cemaphonic

(4,138 posts)
179. Ok, now I'm offended...
Fri Apr 14, 2017, 04:05 AM
Apr 2017

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.

csziggy

(34,120 posts)
30. He's just cutting down on his laundry
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:33 PM
Apr 2017

Maybe that is to make up for not having a flow restrictor on the shower head?

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
79. If you've got that body, you're allowed to wear briefs.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:55 PM
Apr 2017

The rest of us, at least over age 25, it's gotta be boxers.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
96. Those aren't actually underwear, technically.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:58 AM
Apr 2017

I think they're more like a strip of painter's tape holding up some sort of small mesh pouch.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
163. Silly, one of the many benefits of that "underwear" is, it doesn't HAVE a back side.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 08:19 AM
Apr 2017

It's a band attached to a mesh pouch. Bet it gets great ventilation, too.

athena

(4,187 posts)
27. I bet it would have been OK if it had been a woman.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:30 PM
Apr 2017

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.

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #95)

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
76. I dont see anyone disturbed here.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:40 PM
Apr 2017

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)
108. There it is
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:58 AM
Apr 2017

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)
110. Or, maybe people just like to look at sexy attractive people of the opposite or same gender
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:05 AM
Apr 2017

Depending on where their preferences lie.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
112. Why not an attractive image that isn't objectifying?
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:25 AM
Apr 2017

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)
113. People are sexually attracted to other people, often based upon physical appearance. This isn't
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:34 AM
Apr 2017

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)
117. Sex, sexuality, and sexualizing people into objects
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:11 AM
Apr 2017

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)
119. You should take it up with the OP, then.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:18 AM
Apr 2017

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)
183. using your logic, cultures that strictly censor images of sex and nudity should be less misogynistic
Fri Apr 14, 2017, 08:09 AM
Apr 2017

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)
171. no, actually, it would have spawned a month-long outrage, and anyone who rec'ced this thread
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 06:57 PM
Apr 2017

would be put on a "list".

Moostache

(9,895 posts)
33. I am past the age of being offended by that...
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:37 PM
Apr 2017

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...

AgadorSparticus

(7,963 posts)
35. Why would a liberal site find it offensive? Are they overrun with conservative trolls?
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:38 PM
Apr 2017

That's the only thing I can think of. ...

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
81. DING DING DING DING DING DING
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 11:02 PM
Apr 2017

Yeah, and religious fundamentalists trying to shoehorn their censorship culture war bullshit under a thin veneer of supposed "progressivism"....


steve2470

(37,457 posts)
130. you nailed it
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 09:14 AM
Apr 2017

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)
37. Wrong crowd to find that offensive-
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:44 PM
Apr 2017

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.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
41. I imagine many people can say "whatever gets you through the night" to racist speech as well.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:49 PM
Apr 2017

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)
169. "Good men doing nothing" about someone deciding of his/her own free will to pose for a sexy picture?
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 06:38 PM
Apr 2017

How in the everloving FUCK is that akin to "racist speech"?

I don't expect an answer, of course.



Iggo

(47,487 posts)
42. I suppose I could have stated that better.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:49 PM
Apr 2017

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)
44. I wonder if you had cropped the pic at the navel if the same complaint would have occurred.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:50 PM
Apr 2017

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)
78. Except in my experience, at least on "progressive" sites, it's the same people who get upset.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:53 PM
Apr 2017

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.

UTUSN

(70,496 posts)
46. The part that answers your own question is:
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:02 PM
Apr 2017

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 don’t 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?).

 

FDRsGhost

(470 posts)
47. Gay country singer...that is NOT a job for the timid
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:08 PM
Apr 2017

I have to give him props because that is walking right into the enemies bar and bringing it to them

WePurrsevere

(24,259 posts)
62. Personally I don't find nudity offensive and...
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:01 PM
Apr 2017

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)
80. Seriously.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:56 PM
Apr 2017

The fact that anyone still has shitfits over sex and nudity in the year 2017 simply boggles my mind.

WePurrsevere

(24,259 posts)
99. Our puritanical roots run deep. I swear...
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 05:48 AM
Apr 2017

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. )

William769

(55,124 posts)
72. I've always hated the term "sugar daddy"
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:24 PM
Apr 2017

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)
75. We now know Steve Grand is circumcised.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:38 PM
Apr 2017

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)
88. Please tell me you are kidding
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 11:55 PM
Apr 2017

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)
94. I wish I was.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:53 AM
Apr 2017

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)
133. Unbelievably insensitive, to compare paid models to the victims of the Killing Fields.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:01 AM
Apr 2017

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)
145. I have a friend who is a survivor of the killing fields. I interviewed him and survivors of three
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:59 PM
Apr 2017

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)
148. Exactly. 3 women posing in bathing suits for a magazine isn't a "human rights atrocity" at all.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 03:10 AM
Apr 2017

This place gets a little weird, sometimes.

A HERETIC I AM

(24,320 posts)
175. A LITTLE WEIRD?!?
Fri Apr 14, 2017, 01:24 AM
Apr 2017

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)
181. Hear ya. But at least the Moon Bombing was fun.
Fri Apr 14, 2017, 06:13 AM
Apr 2017

Swimsuit Issuemaggeddon 2014 was like the HUAC/McCarthy era in GD.





betsuni

(25,128 posts)
156. When I searched for that Cambodian comment,
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 04:49 AM
Apr 2017

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)
157. There was a full month of multiple threads. Threads upon threads upon threads.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 04:53 AM
Apr 2017

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)
158. Oh, I just thought that for the multiple times you referrenced it, you'd remember.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:06 AM
Apr 2017

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)
160. ... in the other post (#88) I said "fairly certain".
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:21 AM
Apr 2017

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)
83. To play Devil's advocate -
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 11:25 PM
Apr 2017

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)
90. Pat said nude pix of Melinia Trump are "pure art". Surely he would
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:01 AM
Apr 2017

extend his praise to include the gentleman in this photo.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
111. Pat is so full of shit he's simply hard to take seriously enough to ridicule, if such a
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:07 AM
Apr 2017

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)
101. Umm... Snopes...
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:13 AM
Apr 2017
http://www.snopes.com/pat-robertson-melania-nude-pics/

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)
114. Yeah, that makes more sense.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:38 AM
Apr 2017

At his age, he probably isn't allowed by his medical team any sort of "excitement" anyway.

herding cats

(19,549 posts)
85. Oh. My. Goodness.
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 11:39 PM
Apr 2017

*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)
87. it's offensive because...
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 11:44 PM
Apr 2017

... who wears their underwear in the shower anyway? DEEPLY OFFENSIVE! TRIGGERED!

luvMIdog

(2,533 posts)
107. uhmn my eyes were kinda drawn to the package but I'm sure that's my problem hahahaha
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:55 AM
Apr 2017

Guess I'm just a dirty old lady checking out a gay guy package

Docreed2003

(16,817 posts)
118. I don't find that offensive at all
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:11 AM
Apr 2017

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)
120. I suspect it was the animation that did you in, there, doc
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:25 AM
Apr 2017


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)
173. Lol...i suppose you're right Warren...
Fri Apr 14, 2017, 12:25 AM
Apr 2017

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)
121. Because it's appeal is to both....
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:29 AM
Apr 2017

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.

steve2470

(37,457 posts)
132. The same people offended by this were offended by the split-second revealing of Janet Jackson's.....
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 09:38 AM
Apr 2017

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)
139. The most offensive thing that happened at the Super Bowl Halftime in the past 20 years?
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:46 PM
Apr 2017

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!

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
140. Apparently this man is being "objectified"
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:47 PM
Apr 2017

which as near as I can tell means "is featured in an image that might turn someone, somewhere, on".

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
146. From the article:
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 09:01 PM
Apr 2017
It’s also time to stop the patriarchal, outdated nonsense about male genitalia and start treating the male body in the manner it deserves: as a thing of beauty, as something to admire, to be inspired by, to get excited about, to love, and to look at. If you get a hard-on in the process, bully for you.


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)
149. I'm offended by the silliness of his HAVING CLOTHES ON IN THE SHOWER! ;-) He's actually not as
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 03:45 AM
Apr 2017

good-looking facially straight-on.

VOX

(22,976 posts)
152. Because Mike Pence could NOT eat alone with that ad.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 04:09 AM
Apr 2017

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.

Warpy

(110,909 posts)
176. Not really my type
Fri Apr 14, 2017, 01:35 AM
Apr 2017

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.

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
197. So
Sun Apr 16, 2017, 12:51 AM
Apr 2017

Have we learned anything more about the alleged site that allegedly had a problem with this?

Just checking.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
198. I'm still waiting for the flood of outraged, homoeroticism-traumatized dudebros we were promised
Sun Apr 16, 2017, 04:39 PM
Apr 2017

Why, I think this thread has some potential to expose some real hypocrisy on this board!



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Is This Photo Deeply ...