xaphod Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Judging by the furore that Janet Jackson's bare tit caused in the media, this should be equally cataclysmic. I think this is very beautiful and could look at it for hours (I'd also kill for a woman who looked like this). Before people say this is porn, it's scanned from the Sunday Times 'Style' magazine which I peruse avidly for the latest shoe styles. It is available freely in the UK to anyone, even a child, wishing to part with £1.40 on a Sunday. If it is OK to publish this with our pro-establishment quality newspaper, then, in my book, it aint p0rn. If anyone would like to use her as a screensaver, here's a 500KB version. http://65.160.96.70/hhplace/images/1096710106.jpg Xa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoverfly Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Oh man!!! The way things are in the U.S. right now, nobody would dare print somting like that with out it modified. My self I say it's is more like art than porn. But I am not a Republican. Hello, my name is Hoverfly. I’m a high heel addict…. Weeeeeeeeeee! 👠1998 to 2022! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shoe Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 It's Kate Moss isn't it? Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WickedHeelz Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hoverfly is right. There's no way that would fly in the US right now. At least not if it was printed in a daily newspaper. There are non-pornographic men's mags that might have something similar (Maxim, FHM, etc.), but there's no way you'd see it in the New York Times or Washington Post. Europe's way more progressive in this area. Which makes me wonder... if "indecency" is the issue, why do they freely print and show on TV during prime time pictures of carnage? Is that somehow decent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Art most definitely. However, if you are a bible bashing, god fearing, witch hunting, morally upright citizen with your brain infused in 17th/18th/19th C ideas, you may think it is porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurieheels Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Raise the water an inch or so and it flies a lot eaier. I would think that to make it a better tease, the water should rise to just above the nipple, but still expose some of the areola (however one spells it). My personal question is "is it artistic, or is it art." If it were porn, the picture's focus would be on something more sexual. This is more erotic than pornographic. And Eroticism is a good thing. Porn is a bad thing. The line in between them is easy to fall across, and bile thumping people not comfortable with their own bodies and the world around them tend to push that line one direction. And then people who feel you can't have morality with self expression push it the other as they try to use shock tactics and claim it as art. I am rambling. I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 An even more burning question is does Kate Moss have a right nipple? Was it airbrushed out, or is her right shoulder that much lower, that even some of the aureole, or whatever you call it, is not exposed. Airbrushes and floating flowers. Single nippled deities of the fashion tabloids. This is looking more like art by the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba136 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 What was the context in which that the photograph was used? I doubt they would print her just because they thought it to be a beautiful picture or for erotic purposes. Was it to advertise some type of bath cosmetic? (I happen to think it's wonderful photograph of a strikingly beautiful woman and presented in good taste.) Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 They usually spray this kind of thing randomly all over the glossy insert magazines ostensibly to sell something or other, if not the magazine itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirted-UK Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I would certainly hang it on my study wall, but the wife would object! "You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave ! " The Eagles, "Hotel California" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirted-UK Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Here is a screensaver version without the lettering. http://s02.imagehost.org/0243/Kate_Moss.jpg "You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave ! " The Eagles, "Hotel California" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaphod Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 I thought someone might lose the lettering for us. If you are adept with picture editors, you might lose the staple holes and the centre fold too. The subject was something like 'Paradise for £150 ?'. The reporter went of various 'spa' establishments in London where you are generally pampered, aroma therapied and made a fuss of. Such places are frequented by women who have lots of money to spend and the time to spend it. OK, the bare nipple is a bit naughty, but not excessively so. I will recount the comment of the Rylestone and District Women's Institute calendar .... lots of middle-aged Yorkshire country women who posed nude (tastfully) for a Christmas calandar. In one picture, some areola was visible. This was airbrushed out for the US calendar. Upon seeing the airbrushed version, the lady (of about 50 years) commented "it's awful, it makes me look deformed." Xa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaphod Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 An even more burning question is does Kate Moss have a right nipple? Was it airbrushed out, or is her right shoulder that much lower, that even some of the aureole, or whatever you call it, is not exposed. Airbrushes and floating flowers. Single nippled deities of the fashion tabloids. This is looking more like art by the second. There's a hint of areola on her other breast showing on the original. Xa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne_Louise Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I'm with Laurie on this. It is a beautiful picture of a beautiful girl. It has decidedly erotic overtones but definitely not pornographic. I had no idea that there could be any objection to such things in the U.S. It's certainly not offensive to my kind of Christianity, and anyone who thinks it is probably has deep-seated psychosexual problems which have nothing directly to do with religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirted-UK Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Without the centerfold, staple holes, and mark on her cheak. Also optimized for the Web 455K, now I really must get on and do Laurie's roots! http://s02.imagehost.org/0268/Kate_Mossweb.jpg "You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave ! " The Eagles, "Hotel California" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris100575 Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 It's definitely not porn in my opinion. There's a big difference between tastefully done nudity and "readers' wives"! I have a print of a Van Hove nude in the bedroom that my wife bought for me. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Raise the water an inch or so and it flies a lot easier........... I agree with Laurie on this point. Call me old-fashioned, but my kind of art must be presentable to anyone at anytime. I truly cannot explain why any nude painting or statue can be on public display at an art museum and yet non-explicit nude photos in a magazine are restricted from public view. Even governmental courts can't clearly define what constitutes pornography. I don't want to have to go around hiding pictures or statues when children or even family members are coming over. If the water was raised at least an inch, this photo could be on display in my home. Even in my "private" collection of photos, I prefer models who tease by dressing provocatively rather than appear topless or fully nude. I may be a prude, but I know what I like. click .... click .... click .... The sensual sound of stiletto heels on a hard surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobHH Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Why are so many people offended by the bare human body? Because they are raised to think it is indecent. Seems to me that's a slur against God, or Allah, or whatever, if He (or She) created us all. Why would a good religious person think God's work was indecent? We've got to get over that. The whole Janet Jackson thing was a travesty. If the media hadn't played it up to sell papers, etc. few would have noticed or cared. So our legislators pass a few laws to further restrict our freedoms and make criminals out of people with poor taste. The police state advances. Makes me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I can see why you are taken with the woman Xa, her beauty is rather striking. There wouldn't be to many guys who would object to having her as a dinner date, me included. As for your photo being pornographic....well Mate,I don't think it is,not by any stretch of my imagination, but as Anne_Louise mentioned, there are definitely erotic overtones. I would much rather look at her natural, unspoilt beauty, than some photo in Time Magazine showing a 6year old girl with half her skin burnt off by white phosphorous....or for that matter, the pic that was posted here a week or so ago showing a guy with his dick in a jam jar. jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris100575 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I must have somehow missed the jam jar. (Don't repost it!) Why was it here at all? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLion Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 porn? PORN???? By German law porn constitutes depiction of pimeary genitalia in such a manner that the attention is drawn mainly to the genitalia and for that sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Ahh, yes, but Americans are a bit different, you see. Every country decides for itself what is decent or indecent. Ultimately, every individual decides this as well. I think the nipple was shown simply to draw attention to the ad. I've seen this kind of desperate grab for attention more and more lately, especially from the video game industry. Sex sells, and advertisers are scrambling to show as much skin as their local laws will let them get away with. I also agree with the others who wonder why this is inappropriate but the daily bombardment of disturbing violent imagery from the news media is perfectly acceptable. We can't ignore the violence in the world and remain willfuly ignorant of people in need, but honestly, I'd rather see the nipple, given the choice. I just hope we don't push this kind of thing too far. But I know we will. Jen If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Posted October 10, 2004 Share Posted October 10, 2004 ............I also agree with the others who wonder why this is inappropriate but the daily bombardment of disturbing violent imagery from the news media is perfectly acceptable......... It's quite possible that many of those who have limits about public body exposure also find violence in ANY form equally upsetting. It's true in my case. Let's not jump to conclusions. click .... click .... click .... The sensual sound of stiletto heels on a hard surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genebujold Posted October 10, 2004 Share Posted October 10, 2004 Considering the fact that the vast majority of humankind has gazed on, if not suckled, such an appendage for hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours, I find such categorization of it as "porn" absolutely ridiculous. I like the following definition: 1. Mild Nudity - public display of female breast 2. Strong Nudity - public display of genetalia 3. Eroticism - photos of, pertaining to, or suggestive of coitus, regardless of the state of clothing 4. Porn - Eroticism depicting any penetration of any penetration involving the genitals of either, or both people. My personal believe (emphasis on personal, so please don't take it personally) is that categories 2, 3, and 4 should be controlled at the source or within the infrastructure itself in such a way that minors have no access to it whatsoever. Fortunately, alternatives such as system-level programs using extensive white-lists exist which provide near-bullet-proof access control that blocks out every website that's not specifically searched and found to fit into category 1 (and many whitelists are more restrictive than that, such as the "Seven Website Rule" I use for my four-year-old). I'll up it to twelve when he's older, then 40, then 77, then 120... By that time I'll resort to a better whitelist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts