Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History
Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Like I said to Karl, that they weren't as effective in sexualizing Emma Watson as they could have been seems like a bizzare defense. Mike F. ________________________________ From: Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 11:39:36 AM Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Photo Tampering Throughout History On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Mike Findlay wrote: > > > > > Was she my daughter? > > > > > > > > Was Emma Watson? :) > > > > > > Did they enhance her bust? > > > > Irrelevant. The question of "is she underage, or is she not underage" > is >not affected by what anyone may or may not have done to her bust. > > Actually, the age of Obama's mother is irrelevant to the issue of sexualizaton >of young girls in advertisements for movies. Perhaps. But if Obama's mother was the same age as the girl in the ad, then obviously the applicability (or not) of a term like "underage" would have to apply to both of them equally. And Emma Watson wasn't *especially* sexualized. I don't think anyone would have looked at the touched-up ad and had particuarly sexual thoughts. It's not like they went all Jayne Mansfield on her. -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot