I believe you missed my point Larry. The tut-tutting and head-shaking are about FB's decision to flag the photo and suspend the account. I'm fine with the photo, as I suspect every reasonable person would be.
However, you think a barechested adult male is viewed the same way as a barechested female? Really? Is that why we've fetishized the female breast? Is that why Hooters is one of the most successful bar/restaurant chains in North America? Is that why women pay thousands (sometimes funded by their salivating male partners) to enhance the size of their breasts for no functional advantage whatsoever? I'm not saying that that the female breast is "dirty" or obscene or anything of the sort. But to say that they aren't sexualized or that there's no difference between the male and the female chest is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Cheers, frank Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: >On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 04:11:29PM -0500, knarf wrote: >> Yes, I said that, and of course: >> >> 1) I was talking about adults, although lord knows kids much younger >than her have been sexualized through kiddie beauty pageants and the >like, and, >> >> 2) I was talking about society's view of nudity not my personal view. >> >> That being said there is obviously nothing wrong or sexual about this >photo. >> >> Sometimes I think that people do crap like this in hopes that some >people will get all up-in-arms and yell and scream about political >correctness run amok. So yes, an obviously stupid decision that we can >all tut-tut about and shake our heads at and wonder what the hell they >were thinking. > >I think that in this case it was a mom showing off a cute picture of >her daughter. > > >> >> But in the end what does it mean or prove? And what does it have to >do with our earlier thread on nudity and sexualization and disparity in >gender portrayals? > >There are people who can sexualize *anything*, and if we let the >attitudes >of the few dictate the actions of the many, then nobody can do >anything. > >> >> Here's a question you may want to ask: would we all be crowing were >this a photo of a 21 year old with a skinny waist and 36 inch bustline? >Would anyone dare say there's nothing sexual about that photo? > >If a photo of a bare chested 21 year old man can be not sexual, then >one >of a 21 year old woman can also be not sexual. There are people that >would >sexualize one of Darby's street photos of a pretty girl smoking more >than >they would of the same girl topless in a recreation of the photo I >linked to. > >Don't believe me? google "smoking fetish" sometime and see what you >get. > >I think that the situation with this particular photo is that >facebook's >system is entirely automated, and all it takes is a few people >reporting >a photo for it to automatically be taken down, with no sentient >oversight. > >It's almost enough to make someone want to start a campaign to get >people >to start flagging photos of christmas decorations as inappropriate. > >> >> Cheers, >> >> frank >> >> Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: >> >On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: >> >http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ >> >> “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >and follow the directions. > >-- >Larry Colen l...@red4est.com >http://red4est.com/lrc > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
