Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

You didn't answer the question.

What question Michael.

You posted her picture, she only made a blog.

Apparently you can't see the irony in you wanting to make others conform to your idea of what should be seen and what shouldn't.

Arthur
 
Except when its distracting right?

Like this:
Its no one else's business or should be, what any woman wants to wear.

No where man by the Beatles. Ever hear that song . No where man please listen , you don't know what your missing
I try to make it my business . Crotchless panties oh yeah I go for that kind of dess . Thats good business ! Me and the guys could start a corporation . We will call it " We Care What You wear " Cause we like to stare .
Those eyes are very attractive

Wynn formally known as Signal ? Interesting . Purple rain . I like Prince!! Hell of an artist

I know your reading this . Sticks out tongue
 
What question Michael.

You posted her picture, she only made a blog.

Apparently you can't see the irony in you wanting to make others conform to your idea of what should be seen and what shouldn't.

Arthur
About not having the choice NOT to see the dying nude African boy? You didn't get a choice. Was that wrong? I mean, that boy's photo was in National Geographic. Yet, you unwittingly saw it.


See, FMPOV that IS the point.
 
EDIT: "full frontal nudity" ahead (compliments of Arthur who has convinced me to post a disclaimer).


Wa Wa












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.


I'm not sure of the site rules, is it against the rules to post the actually photograph of the OP? I mean, it seems kind of retarded NOT to post her photo doesn't it? Even WIKI has a section on nudity that shows, *gasp* penises, vagina and breasts.

[removed]


As for the Western media's role in all this. Well, there's a few things.
1. They're owned by a couple wealthy families.
2. We've lost control over the government when they start telling us, the Citizens, what we can and can not see.
3. The girls picture is probably ALL OVER THE INTERNET which was invented by the West (military) and is an excellent example of how WE in the WEST are open!

No one comes even close SAM.



People are already using her image to make a point. WHO knows, maybe she will spark a revolution of a sorts?

[removed]

Whats with the ruby slippers . That is erotic and artistic as can be. She should klick em 3 times and see what happens
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure of the site rules, is it against the rules to post the actually photograph of the OP?

Whether it's against the rules or not....many people view this forum from work, where policies about viewing images of nudes on a work computer are prohibited. It's common courtesy on this, and most forums to hide "NSFW" photos using the "spoiler" tag or hiding it behind a link.
 
that wiki page about nudity is so wrong right out of the gate . Has anyone heard of a hermit crab ? there are creatures too like stick bugs , but then again people think them selves superior to everything so they always try to hoard all the behaviors as if it is only them .

O.K. think about this . A box of rocks is smarter than human race . A box of rocks knows to be a box of rocks . It don't second guess being a box of rocks . It knows to be a box of rocks . Does a human know to be humane ?
 
Whats with the ruby slippers . That is erotic and artistic as can be. She should klick em 3 times and see what happens
I was again thinking that was somewhat goes to the point which seems to be: Screw You

Whether it's against the rules or not....many people view this forum from work, where policies about viewing images of nudes on a work computer are prohibited. It's common courtesy on this, and most forums to hide "NSFW" photos using the "spoiler" tag or hiding it behind a link.
Well, this I can somewhat agree with. While, those rules are really about preventing employees from surfing porn, it'd be a shame if an employer took someone to task over a artistic nude image.



As an aside, I asked two Japanese girls I know to come over and take a look (one is 20 and the other 30 and pregnant) and what did they think or feel or where they shocked. One girl said: nothing. It's not a big deal (made a comment about her body) The other girl said: It was a little interesting because she's Muslim. Anyway, there you go.
 
Last edited:
That girl is a little hussy, and no better than she ought to be.
That's what my aunty would have said, God rest her soul.
And I agree with her.
 
Last edited:
Whether it's against the rules or not....many people view this forum from work, where policies about viewing images of nudes on a work computer are prohibited. It's common courtesy on this, and most forums to hide "NSFW" photos using the "spoiler" tag or hiding it behind a link.

And the people posting this image inline don't care.

They KNOW what is right for the rest of us.

Typical despotic behavior.

Arthur
 
About not having the choice NOT to see the dying nude African boy? You didn't get a choice. Was that wrong? I mean, that boy's photo was in National Geographic. Yet, you unwittingly saw it.


See, FMPOV that IS the point.

well you brought it up so my dead baby jokes day has come . The joke ended in my life when I saw a picture of a truck load of children in the back of a pickup in Haiti . I cried for 3 days am my hands shake to this day day day because of it . I cry right now as that so far removed from the life my brand new baby girl granda daughter experiences her first days of life. Fuck Me anyway your all stupid . The world is dumber than a box of rocks .

So the first time I heard the joke was Monty Python and the Holy Grail movie . Bring out your dead Bring out your Dead . Old lady I am not dead yet . A lot of you know the skit . Then next it was the psycho Ricky Smith . He probably should of been locked up and was many times! So here is cray man Ricky's joke .
Whats more fun than a truck load of dead babies and a pitch fork . The day you hook in a live one . As Ricky smith was saying that he would wiggle his arms if you can imagine that . Then the joke ended with exhibit A. Haitian man loading dead children killed by a HurriCain . Well Housing is one of the 4 . The big for . You could call it modern day extended clothing if you want Rocks


edit : i laughed my ass off the first 2 times i heard the joke . can you tell the difference between laughter and crying . The line is so blurred for me these days


sorrow and joy also
 
Last edited:
people are stupid and i don't mean that to be insulting cause it was written somewhere that we don't know what to be until he is revealed . Dudes I was crowned tom sawyer as a lad . Yea it was in L.A. A guru seminar by I forget the fuckers name , but i do remember Dr.Bob Gibson . He is the one that said I was perfect and I believed Him . I was only about 6 or 7 at that seminar . It was fun and all those gurus filled my little inquisitive mind with all cina cary nonsense.
Anyway there was this girl . She was the star in that animated movie by Disney. Tom Sawyer movie . A classic now a days . It was after the seminar I remember the most cause her me, my brother and sister rolled down a grassy hill for fun . We could not wait to get out of the seminar and go anyplace but there , yet when we started rolling down that hill and the parents came to get us we were all so up set . We wanted to stay and play . That Girl made an impression on Me more than all those gurus put together. The Movie had not come out yet and so when saw it you could imagine us youngens watching that shit with extra gusto .
You all should think about what all those children stories were saying . The message has not changed and well there is getting to be more people with artistic qualities . Even Muslims


Yeah it was me that had the bright idea to roll down the hill . Must of scrambled my brains cause I just can't relate fellas! Fuck is it Me maybe . People have said that I am just not cuel enough . I think I am . I can fuck up anybody real good . A professional rebel rouser . Light the fuse and step out of the way kind of thing . Kind of like a pyromaniac .

It is for your own good ( Learned that one from the progressive movement )
 
Last edited:
You think Americans loved those images?

Get a grip.

You get a grip . Yeah Americans spend there last doolar to see that stuff . On the Big Picture screen . I watched it . Are you saying you didn't and you didn't enjoy it ? What did you think of "Raiders of the Lost Arch"?
How bout that part were he took out his gun and blew em away

Some people will never understand Burning Man . Go to Nevada next year Arthur and get an education
 
Its ironic really. An Egyptian blogger posted full frontal nude pictures of herself on her blog to protest the authoritarianism against women and all the pictures of her in western media outlets are censored!!
I'm not sure what you mean by "western media." Unlike some European countries, general-circulation (or "family") newspapers and magazines in the United States never publish full frontal nudity. These photos were not singled out for "censorship." The same is true of our TV broadcasts. Unlike newspapers, a government agency oversees the airwaves and levies enormous fines against broadcasters who violate this rule, regardless of the religion or ethnicity of the nude person.
They can reprint the Mohammed cartoons ad nauseum.
By our standards there was nothing offensive about the Mohammed cartoons. Our news media can and do publish similar cartoons featuring Christian and Jewish religious figures, and our TV shows do far worse. To censor images considered offensive by members of one religion, but not others, when the only reason anyone considers them offensive is that they are of religious figures (instead of, for example, politicians, entertainers, business leaders, athletes, etc., who are routinely depicted this way) would immediately bring charges of favoring one religion over another, which is illegal.
Just goes to show how self censoring the media is, when it comes to their own societal taboos.
As usual, you are pretending to understand our laws and our culture because you lived here for a couple of years. And as usual, you are embarrassing yourself with the immense depth of your ignorance.

Please shut up and go away. Aside from your rare tidbits of information about amino acids and such, you add nothing to this forum except lies and confusion.
 
Whether it's against the rules or not....many people view this forum from work, where policies about viewing images of nudes on a work computer are prohibited. It's common courtesy on this, and most forums to hide "NSFW" photos using the "spoiler" tag or hiding it behind a link.
I was always under the impression it's against the rules to post nudity, as evidenced from other threads. The Art and Culture section may be an exception, but I doubt this subsection is.
And as an aside, this wasn't created as "art" but as a protest. If some see artistic merit in it then that's fine but it's a mere interpretation. Some might apply the same to pornography. :shrug:

I'm not sure what you mean by "western media." Unlike some European countries, general-circulation (or "family") newspapers and magazines in the United States never publish full frontal nudity. These photos were not singled out for "censorship." The same is true of our TV broadcasts. Unlike newspapers, a government agency oversees the airwaves and levies enormous fines against broadcasters who violate this rule, regardless of the religion or ethnicity of the nude person.By our standards there was nothing offensive about the Mohammed cartoons. Our news media can and do publish similar cartoons featuring Christian and Jewish religious figures, and our TV shows do far worse. To censor images considered offensive by members of one religion, but not others, when the only reason anyone considers them offensive is that they are of religious figures (instead of, for example, politicians, entertainers, business leaders, athletes, etc., who are routinely depicted this way) would immediately bring charges of favoring one religion over another, which is illegal.As usual, you are pretending to understand our laws and our culture because you lived here for a couple of years. And as usual, you are embarrassing yourself with the immense depth of your ignorance.

Please shut up and go away. Aside from your rare tidbits of information about amino acids and such, you add nothing to this forum except lies and confusion.

I expect the voice of reason here will be ignored, but I commend you for the effort Fraggle.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "western media." Unlike some European countries, general-circulation (or "family") newspapers and magazines in the United States never publish full frontal nudity. These photos were not singled out for "censorship." The same is true of our TV broadcasts. Unlike newspapers, a government agency oversees the airwaves and levies enormous fines against broadcasters who violate this rule, regardless of the religion or ethnicity of the nude person

Yes I know, that was the point. That full nudity is offensive in western media. No penises, no nipples, because they are offensive and hence not to be viewed by impressionable people. Because this man's penis for example is REALLY offensive, correct?

Moderator note: The following links are to images from Abu Graib. Posters are reminded that such images should be posted as URLs with appropriate warnings, rather than embedded in posts without warning.

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/02/gallery_abu_ghraib/abu.jpg

Even his face seems offensive here. The rest of him, not so much

This guy's face here, not offensive.

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/02/gallery_abu_ghraib/abu2.jpg

Thankfully no penises were involved, saving the delicate sensibilities of those with the right not to be confronted with human nudity

This one here:

http://www.minorityperspective.co.u.../2b98f1dd486c509919226b544832a5d50422bd74.jpg

note how the penis is kept covered, again so people are not offended.

Did I get it right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top