Monday, April 4, 2011

I tossed the idea around in my head for a few minutes. Should I attach that photo, or not? Seriously, I gave it some thought.
I wasn't sure how The Readers would respond. Would it be deemed pornographic? I worried about that.

I eventually decided to go with it because it was the image that most closely matched to the one in my mind when reading the subject article, and I thought it was funny as hell.

I also decided that it was not offensive when taken in that context. If you think I may have crossed a line, just say so, privately if you need to, and it will be removed.

Per Brian's query: the search words were 'Mother' and 'Cow'. Sometimes you never know what's out there til you try.

14 comments:

my name is Amanda said...

My Official Declaration: I didn't think it was pornographic.

Gino said...

thank you, amanda.

Mr. D said...

Your blog, Gino. I never presume to tell the host how to run his party.

Palm boy said...

Ditto Mr. D

Bike Bubba said...

Creepy bodypaint, but not porn. At least I think it's bodypaint and not a photoshop.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

She looks like some kind of new Star Wars character. Can you imagine a whole planet of them? *shudder*

Foxfier said...

Oh, no! Naked cow titties!

(that was humor, BTW)

Maybe I've been spending too much time around furries.... I'd think someone would have issues with MY image before they'd have problems with that one!

Brian said...

I thought it was funny, if a bit unsettling. But I'll watch Dario Argento movies while eating, so my threshold for revulsion is pretty high.

You could get flagged on Blogger for the (gasp!) visible pubic hair, but I think that's user-driven. And in any case all they do is put your blog behind a content warning.

Jade said...

It looks like photoshop to me, not body paint... layering a texture over another is relatively simple. I'm still baffled as to the original purpose of the image.
It's somewhat nude, and very creepy, but I wouldn't classify it as pornographic. Try going to Edward Weston's site... his pictures of vegetables are more provocative.

Gino said...

Brian: honest injun, i didnt notice the pubic hair til the next morning. it was the boobie-udders that got me thinking cautiously.
if i saw the hair before hand, i would not have posted it for fear of crossing a line.

i find body-form imagery to be art, not porn. porn is something else, the something else you are not likley to find in the cistine chapel.
but not all have the same sensibilities that i do.

Jade said...

The topic comes up in photography forums quite a lot... generally speaking it has to do with context. A naked woman floating in a lake... leaning against a window looking out... standing with whatever weird prop (again... see the Weston's website) is by and large considered art. Explicit sexual behavior, on the other hand... like a woman humping said weird prop... that would be porn.

I kinda thought in this photo that the hair might have been a clever part of the photoshopping... but in any case, pubic hair does not immediately mean it is porn.

If you want to see beautiful human body imagery, check out the toe sox ads:
http://www.toesox.com/index.php/media/toesox-ads

Gino said...

your right, jade, but if i post some 'art' pics, this place would become NSFW, and could get readers in trouble.

OregonGuy said...

I've had this pic for years. I think it is funny. And, have sent it to clients over the years when needing just the right pic to make a point.

Now, when I posted a topless pic of Monica Lewinsky, I did get the boot at Red State. That, too, I found funny. The boyz at Red State did not.

Mebbe appropriate decorum is not my strong suit. So, be aware.
.

Gino said...

OG: appropriate decorum is not something i'm always noted for, either.