Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History

> I'm not sure how this matters.
>
> **because the modification was so minor I
> contend it added nothing sexual.
>

Well, then? What *did* it add? More to the point, why was it done?

> Again, that's not relevant. It was *inherently* sexual, and the question is
> whether or not that's ok.
>
> **why?  Because it was her boob?

Um, yes.

> What about the hair and facial edits?  Her abdomen? The
> glow?  All of these was there.  We only seem to care about
> the boob.

Okay, well, these questions are sort of outside the scope of the
debate. Why do civilized cultures generally place special sexual
emphasis on womens' breasts? I don't know, but they certainly do. The
question, then, is why was it done here, and is it okay that they did?

> I mean, look, if you were simply saying, "Yeah, they made
> the pic a little sexier, and I have no problem with that," that
> would be one thing. The head scratcher is this, "Maybe they
> didn't do anything at all! If they did, it wasn't much! You can't
> see her nipples, what are you bitching about?" argument.
>
> ***hmmm, I check and so far you win for the being the first to
> mention nipples. I see where your mind is.

I was kidding about that last part. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

> ***Seriously, no one has made any of those arguments.

You've made *both* of the first two arguments ("maybe they didn't do
anything at all" and "if they did, it wasn't much").

> ***let me repeat.  I don’t find the breast edit inherently sexier.

Fair enough. So why do you think it was done? (Or, if you can't bring
yourself to accept that it *was* done, why do you think it is *ever*
done?)

-- 
-pcg
 [email protected]

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot