?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Get Back | Tomorrow Never Knows

WTF?

What IS the problem so many people have with this picture?



It's (IMHO) a beautiful picture of a man and his daughter. Taken by his wife, the child's mother. It is not pornography. It is not "a pin-up." There is no mixed message here. Yet every time somebody posts the damned thing somewhere, a handful of would-be Puritans gasp aloud or wiggle uneasily in their chairs. One idiot even compared this to the Heather Mills pics and said this was WORSE because of its "unclear intentions"! The fuck?

I guarantee you if this were a naked woman holding her infant son against a bare breast, nobody would say a bloody thing about it.

Tags:

Comments

( 6 Things We Said Today — Dear Sir or Madam )
madcowsexiness
Sep. 19th, 2006 11:51 pm (UTC)
I can understand it. Most people find anything even approaching inappropriate activity with a child to be very offensive. The nakedness is a little off-putting. But obviously "naked" does not inherently equal "sexual". I have to remind myself of that anyway, though. It's hard to remember that in a society where we are taught that nakedness is sexual by default.

(Sorry, had to do the icon...bwah)
hb_princess
Sep. 20th, 2006 03:41 am (UTC)
Okay, yeah, I can see that - as an initial reaction. Hell, MY first reaction was "Homigosh, he's NAKED, isn't he?" And my second was, "Damn, Linda was a lucky woman." ;) But my third and lasting reaction was "What a beautiful picture." I mean, I understand where the nudity element catches you off-guard, but when you really look at the picture, you realize the nudity is incidental. He's naked in his own home on a rainy Scotland morning with his child and his wife, who just happens to be a photographer. As you said, nakedness does not automatically connote sexuality.

ICON! ;D See, you proved my point! Macca looks much more like a child molester in that icon than he does in the picture.
oh_johnny_
Sep. 20th, 2006 02:31 am (UTC)
*waves* Wandering the friends list of the comm - so not actually stalking you :p

And, yup. I don't get it either. I think people just get all bent out of shape because the baby is hiding his dick and they...I don't know - think it's sexy? Or that he would have a sexual reaction to that? That maybe his hard-on is poking his daughter? Or something even weirder that I don't get?

A friend of mine lists among her many objections to RPS that people are over-sexualizing relationships these days; that they can't see *anything* without adding sex to the mix. I have a feeling that the reaction to this pic comes out of that.

I also have a completely unsubstantiated gut feeling that the negative reaction comes from younger viewers. But that might just be wishful thinking.
hb_princess
Sep. 20th, 2006 04:01 am (UTC)
Hey, you! *waves back* Stalk all you like, hon. :D

I think your friend has a very good point. Any "sexiness" in the pic comes from the mindset of those viewing it, not from the picture itself. And we've done it, too, I know - "Hey, Paul, why don't I hold the baby for a while?" *vbg* - but I think there's a huge difference between saying, "Damn, that's a DILF if ever I saw one" and turning it into a "sexy" picture.

I think people just get all bent out of shape because the baby is hiding his dick

Yes, exactly. Hence my observation that no one would be offended if it was a woman. And, honestly, would it be any less "offensive" if the baby WASN'T hiding his dick?

LOL.
shipchan
Sep. 29th, 2006 09:10 pm (UTC)
Oh I love that picture. I use to have a poster of it. Anyone who thinks something is wrong with that picture is thinking nasty things in the first place.
hb_princess
Oct. 1st, 2006 04:42 am (UTC)
Anyone who thinks something is wrong with that picture is thinking nasty things in the first place.

Exactly. Thank you.

A poster of that picture would be awesome. I'm so jealous! ;)
( 6 Things We Said Today — Dear Sir or Madam )