Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History

Only when you assume that was the intent.
 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:45 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Photo Tampering Throughout History
 
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