Why should they?
You're right, they don't need to - its self evident simply by the fact that they airbrushed her nipples.
Why should they?
Her picture is hardly erotic and would be classified by most people as somewhat amateurish artistic. She's doing something with black and white photograph and red colored shoes and bow. Sure, she's only 20 and probably doesn't know much, but, so what? You could find a similar photo in the 1920s. WIKI posts nude photos. Medical journals print nude photos. Magazines in the grocery shop post nude photos. We're not THAT prudish, but, yes, a little prudish. That's going to change with the next generation. Aliaa's generation isn't going to give a shit about this plain nudity. They've seen it all.What does she think of the news media in the west censoring her? It was an awfully brave step she took and it was categorically dismissed by the media who airbrushed away her stance. I think she is still young and idealistic. Life will change that
Arab woman: I strip to show that nudity is not obscene
SAM said:to protest the authoritarianism against women
News media: I support your stance! Oh wait, I see nipples and pubic hair [airbrushes nipples and pubic hair] Now I support your stance!
I'm not sure of the site rules, is it against the rules to post the actually photograph of the OP?
On page 7 of a discussion on nudity Arthur.Yes I think it is.
A link to her site was sufficient for people to see the pic if they choose to.
But I see you decided to take that choice from them.
Nice.
Arthur
On page 7 of a discussion on nudity Arthur.
How about WIKI? DO you think WIKI should censor it's online nude pictures? Or do you think it's reasonable to expect to see nudity under a discussion on nudity?
But, that's sort of the crux of the thing isn't it? Whether public nude art is profane.
Perhaps we should remove all public statues that are nude.
Or I know, maybe cover women in a Burka, wouldn't want to take away the choice of men who may not want to be tempted by their ankles.
Why is it do you think Aliaa made her photograph public?
Maybe think about that. If you're not confronted with the photograph, can you get its meaning? I don't think so.
So, yes, your choice was stolen from you.
The moment you see the starving naked African boy. The moment you see Aliaa dressed in stockings, shoes and a bow. That's the point. That's the reason why these photographs are made. Poor you, you seemed to have missed it :shrug:
Are you in favor of newspapers publishing naked pictures of underage kids?
I rewrote my argument, I still think it makes good logical sense.If I go to an encyclopedia on the topic of nudity, yes I expect that I will see examples.
In this case the actual picture does not need to be posted inline.
The link was posted, if people wanted to see the pictures they can do so.
Indeed, when one gets there, one is warned specifically that they will see nudity.
There is no such warning on this board.
Under your idea, I could open a thread on Child Pornography and then could post pictures of Child Porn.
Right?
No it's not.
One can choose to go to an art show, or not.
One can choose to go to her site, or not.
One can choose to buy porn, or not.
It's about CHOICE.
You know, what you took away from other users of this site.
No one is asking for that and statues aren't going to be sitting on the same bus seat I am.
Again there is a time an place for everything.
BS, strawman argument.
No one in the West is calling for women to wear Burkas.
Indeed, as pointed out, the minium acceptable wear in public is what is allowed on a beach.
Which is not much
You seem to be overly perturbed with seeing a nude woman. It's not erotica Arthur and you can find life like painting of naked people right here in this very thread. I really don't see the difference. Care to explain why a photograph capturing of a naked women is bad and a photo-real painting of an adult woman is not?According to the OP it was to do with protesting the authoritarianism against women
And yet she didn't confront me with the photo of her, YOU DID.
Yeah, and YOU were the person who stole it
And again, you think YOUR point of view of what I should see TRUMPS my point of view of what I should see.
Typical DICTATOR type view.
You are so conceited that you think you are smarter than the Sheeple.
Guess what Michael, you're NOT.
Arthur
I rewrote my argument, I still think it makes good logical sense.
I hope this doesn't sound rude, but, it's sort of like not noticing the starving child, but complaining about his nudity. You don't find that sort of perverse?
I get your point about not having the choice, yet, that is the point of the artist. To take away your choice to ignore her. She's not willing accept being treated as a second class citizen and she's not going to give you the choice to ignore her anymore. Sure, she's only 20, and her art is amateurish, yet, here she is, in that way 20s 'I'm indestructible' sort of way, seemingly willing to die for it.
You seem to be overly perturbed with seeing a nude woman. It's not erotica Arthur and you can find life like painting of naked people right here in this very thread. I really don't see the difference.
Care to explain why a photograph capturing of a naked women is bad and a photo-real painting of an adult woman is not?
If her photo were in a modern art museum, I'm fairly certain most'd walk right past it without notice.
Ever see Ron Mueck's statues:
I once saw a group of 8th - 10th graders walking through his gallery on their field trip.
Wasn't that the whole point of her making a confronting photographic public?More to the point, people know what "full frontal nudity" is, and right from the beginning that was made clear that was what her pictures were.
Your taking away people's choice added nothing to the discussion.
Arthur
Wasn't that the whole point of her making a confronting photographic public?
If so, then you'd think that experiencing that would add to the discussion :shrug:
So, you thought seeing the African took away your choice?It's about CHOICE Michael.
Clearly the irony of your position, taking away peoples choice, escapes you.
Baaaahhhh.... now I'm repeating myself.No Michael, she put it on her BLOG.
To see her picture you had to make a CHOICE to do so.
She, unlike you, did not take that choice away from people.
Arthur