Frankly, I found the image obnoxious, but less objectionable than the fact that you sent a link to it without warning.
Why is the defense of suggesting 'hypocrisy'so commonly used by the offensive?
Ed
From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PhotoSIG (offending images) was Re: New Message from Mike Johnston Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:18:13 -0500
frank theriault wrote:Well, FWIW, I didn't particularly appreciate the image from PhotoSig. I now know that you were trying to make a point, but I think it could have been made in a slightly more sensitive way than, without warning, showing an image of a penis being fondled.
Well, there are far more objectionable images there on PhotoSIG. I would rate this particular one as "mild" when compared with the others.
My intention was indeed to shock. Without the "surprise factor", you wouldn't be shocked at all. Maybe just disgusted.
Now, if you go to PhotoSIG through the main page, you may see that apart the self description as a "Photo critique and discussion forum", you don't get any hint that you might find objectionable content there.
What I found to be really objectionable (especially without the necessary warnings) were some gory images (e.g. taken during a surgical operation, decapitated animals, etc).
The image of a p***s is objectionable just because we were educated that it should be so. What I was trying to do was to start a discussion about why in our society we are so convinced that certain parts of our bodies are so highly disgusting and objectionable. While, at the same time, we have a strong industry producing magazines, films and albums depicting exactly those parts (especially of women), and these materials sell very well. Isn't there some hypocrisy going on here ?
cheers, caveman
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
