On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Martin Read <zen75...@zen.co.uk> wrote: > On 01/01/16 17:47, Ric Moore wrote: >> >> On 01/01/2016 11:23 AM, pe...@berghold.net wrote: >>> >>> I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship? >> >> >> I'm not seeing any full frontal nudity. Ric > > > An image can feature full frontal nudity without being an exercise in sexual > objectification, and equally can be an exercise in sexual objectification > without featuring full frontal nudity. > > A reasonable person could certainly conclude that quite a few of the images > specifically called out by the original poster in this thread > fall into the latter category.
Actually that is incorrect. All such conclusions rest on the interpretation of the graphic, and interpretation is guided or even controlled by the biases of the observer. So objectification, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. So people who detect objectification in an arrangement of pixels should be forbidden from interpreting imagery. Such a policy is NOT censorship -- it is more an exercise of preventive medicine. One might as well object to the data downloaded on the basis that the bits involved were recycled rather than fresh. Prohibit images composed of stale bits! Not. Lee Winter Nashua, New Hampshire United States of America