You didn't answer the question.she didn't.
You did.
You didn't answer the question.she didn't.
You did.
You didn't answer the question.
Except when its distracting right?
Like this:
Its no one else's business or should be, what any woman wants to wear.
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.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
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]
I'm not sure of the site rules, is it against the rules to post the actually photograph of the OP?
I was again thinking that was somewhat goes to the point which seems to be: Screw YouWhats with the ruby slippers . That is erotic and artistic as can be. She should klick em 3 times and see what happens
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.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.
See, FMPOV that IS the point.
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.
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.
I was again thinking that was somewhat goes to the point which seems to be: Screw You
Oh lord please don't let Me be misunderstood
But we get to watch people being burned alive on the news, shot in the head and tortured. Ironic isn't it?
You think Americans loved those images?
Get a grip.
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.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!!
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.They can reprint the Mohammed cartoons ad nauseum.
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.Just goes to show how self censoring the media is, when it comes to their own societal taboos.
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.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'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'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