- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,301
- Format
- Multi Format
Master of "whataboutism" ;-)
Thats people who have weird hang ups and prejudices. If you look at them in a different light you would see something very natural and quite beautiful. I don't find them at all sexual. People are taught that they have to wear clothes for some bizarre reason. The young children who live next door often play outside in the nude as did my children when they were younger. Clothes are uncomfortable except for terry toweling shorts.Well many consider the works of Helmut Newton and Bunny Yeager to be "sexually explicit". SO when a person poses nude CHILDREN in identical poses.... one can only declare them as sexually explicit.
A quick trip to Oxford or Merriam-Webster will clear up the definition of “sexually explicit” for you.Do not forget Sturges or Mann, they have spent DECADES being celebrated for taking HEAVILY sexually explicit photographs of underage children. Have made fortunes selling art prints of those images, have had numerous photo gallery showings of those images, sold countless photo books. Yet how many times have you denounced them on here?
Do not forget Sturges or Mann, they have spent DECADES being celebrated for taking HEAVILY sexually explicit photographs of underage children. Have made fortunes selling art prints of those images, have had numerous photo gallery showings of those images, sold countless photo books. Yet how many times have you denounced them on here?
The liberal elite have been going after John Wayne for decades.
A quick trip to Oxford or Merriam-Webster will clear up the definition of “sexually explicit” for you.
The liberal elite have been going after John Wayne for decades.
The copyright people have their own police force?l
lets try an expiriment. you save one of the most visually detailed photographs by either of them, and try to print it at walmart photo lab,,, see how many police come talk with you.
l
lets try an expiriment. you save one of the most visually detailed photographs by either of them, and try to print it at walmart photo lab,,, see how many police come talk with you.
Did you look up sexually explicit yet? And what police are you referring to, the art police? Police of the prudes? I'm at a loss as to why you think any pictures Sally Mann took would be illegal. Sexually explicit images of children - look it up please - are illegal for a reason, but the images she made of her kids are art.
One does not need to be either liberal nor elite to go after John Wayne who was not an actor, he just played himself, nor was he ethical, he named names.
if yo9u dont grasp the concept, i DARE you to try to print one of her photos at the local printing place. You WILL be talking to police about it.Did you look up sexually explicit yet? And what police are you referring to, the art police? Police of the prudes? I'm at a loss as to why you think any pictures Sally Mann took would be illegal. Sexually explicit images of children - look it up please - are illegal for a reason, but the images she made of her kids are art.
Possibly, probably not something you should do, people will call the police if you take a photo near a play ground. Fortunately the law protects legitimate reasons in Australia, dont know about the USA.if yo9u dont grasp the concept, i DARE you to try to print one of her photos at the local printing place. You WILL be talking to police about it.
If you want to pretend that Sally Mann’s images are illegal you can do that. Pretending can be fun.if yo9u dont grasp the concept, i DARE you to try to print one of her photos at the local printing place. You WILL be talking to police about it.
Pretending can be fun.
Or James Brown'sLike it or not, this is a man's world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?