Previous Entry | Next Entry

I am amused

  • Apr. 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 AM
handbasket
In a the most recent post on amazing_ink , there is a picture  tattoo of a topless woman that has had little black ovals photoshopped over where her nipples would be.  The owner of this tattoo is a male who is also topless in the picture.  His nipple is clearly visible.

So, the lesson we learn is,

real male nipple = a-okay

drawing of female nipple = OMG WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! 

Oh, and the topless woman is really only the top of a woman, as she appears to have been torn in half.  Her guts are hanging out, but thankfully just a bit of intestine and nothing too insanely graphic as no attempts have been made to cover them with photoshop's helpful black ovals. 

Our society = all sorts of messed up.

(and won't someone please think of the children?)

(and also, why is Deepest Sender suddenly not inserting user/community links when I tell it to?  I can't be expected to actually type the tags myself, can I?  Oh, the humanity)

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]sweet_lil_rach wrote:
Apr. 2nd, 2009 07:40 am (UTC)
Ah, ridiculous isn't it? It's because men see them as sexual objects, therefore they are - like men can wonder around in public topless but women can't. And I thought it was blooming stupid when there was such an uproar over the whole Janet Jackson thing.

I have a friend who models for various photographers and she's done a few nudes - hers are never covered up when she does those because it's in the name of art, not pornography, and that's the way it should be I think.
[info]jateke wrote:
Apr. 3rd, 2009 02:28 am (UTC)
Ack boobies aieeeeee! They are PERVERSE and BAD! Shield yourself! Shield your babies! (Shield them from... the medically acknowledged best possible source of baby nourishment. Right.)
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )