Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

You're right, they don't need to - its self evident simply by the fact that they airbrushed her nipples.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is your point, really?

You think that others should change - but you can't say why they should change?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

EDIT: "full frontal nudity" ahead (compliments of Arthur who has convinced me to post a disclaimer).

Her picture is hardly erotic and would be classified by most people as somewhat amateurish artistic. She's doing something with black and white photograph and red colored shoes and bow. Sure, she's only 20 and probably doesn't know much, but, so what? You could find a similar photo in the 1920s. WIKI posts nude photos. Medical journals print nude photos. Magazines in the grocery shop post nude photos. We're not THAT prudish, but, yes, a little prudish. That's going to change with the next generation. Aliaa's generation isn't going to give a shit about this plain nudity. They've seen it all.


I'm not sure of the site rules, is it against the rules to post the actually photograph of the OP? I mean, it seems kind of retarded NOT to post her photo doesn't it? Even WIKI has a section on nudity that shows, *gasp* penises, vagina and breasts.

Moderator warning: Full-frontal nude image of the woman who is the subject of the thread follows.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZcYSzyrQo...55409886239_1272456574_32383067_2052744_n.jpg




As for the Western media's role in all this. Well, there's a few things.
1. They're owned by a couple wealthy families.
2. We've lost control over the government when they start telling us, the Citizens, what we can and can not see.
3. The girls picture is probably ALL OVER THE INTERNET which was invented by the West (military) and is an excellent example of how WE in the WEST are open!

No one comes even close SAM.



People are already using her image to make a point. WHO knows, maybe she will spark a revolution of a sorts?

Moderator warning: image above is repeated, slightly altered.

http://italiots.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/feeldesain-aliaa-elmahdy_thumb.png?w=567&h=357

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except you have changed your story

This was your OP explanation:

When that didn't resonate you made up a new explanation.

No, if a news organization has a link to her site, then people can decide for themselves if they want to see the picture.

No censorship is involved.

Arthur

 

Yes I think it is.

A link to her site was sufficient for people to see the pic if they choose to.

But I see you decided to take that choice from them.

In the West, we don't censor nudity, but we do tend to let people make the choice if they want to see it or not. Indeed, if nudity is shown in places where it might not be expected to be seen, the audience is advised ahead of time.

It's called being sensitive to other's sensibilities.

Clearly some here think that their desire for freedom of expression trumps that of other's desire.

Typical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST86JM1RPl0

Arthur

 

On page 7 of a discussion on nudity Arthur.

How about WIKI? DO you think WIKI should censor it's online nude pictures? Or do you think it's reasonable to expect to see nudity under a discussion on nudity?

But, that's sort of the crux of the thing isn't it? Whether public nude art is profane. Perhaps we should remove all public statues that are nude. Or I know, maybe cover women in a Burka, wouldn't want to take away the choice of men who may not want to be tempted by their ankles.

Retreading your post, it sounds perverse. As if there is something inherently wrong with a nude photograph of an adult woman. That's .... weird in a creepy sort of way to me. How about the photos of the nude African child dying under the desert sun? Can you imagine if someone were to think that the nudity was perverse? AND completely miss the fact this child was left to die, alone, under the sun. Why is it do you think Aliaa made her photograph public?

Maybe think about that. If you're not confronted with the photograph, can you get its meaning? I don't think so.

So, yes, your choice was stolen from you. The moment you see the starving naked African boy. The moment you see Aliaa dressed in stockings, shoes and a bow. That's the point. That's the reason why these photographs are made. Poor you, you seemed to have missed it :shrug:

 

If I go to an encyclopedia on the topic of nudity, yes I expect that I will see examples.

In this case the actual picture does not need to be posted inline.
The link was posted, if people wanted to see the pictures they can do so.
Indeed, when one gets there, one is warned specifically that they will see nudity.

There is no such warning on this board.

Under your idea, I could open a thread on Child Pornography and then could post pictures of Child Porn.

Right?

No it's not.
One can choose to go to an art show, or not.
One can choose to go to her site, or not.
One can choose to buy porn, or not.

It's about CHOICE.

You know, what you took away from other users of this site.

No one is asking for that and statues aren't going to be sitting on the same bus seat I am.

Again there is a time an place for everything.

BS, strawman argument.
No one in the West is calling for women to wear Burkas.
Indeed, as pointed out, the minium acceptable wear in public is what is allowed on a beach.

Which is not much

 

According to the OP it was to do with protesting the authoritarianism against women

And yet she didn't confront me with the photo of her, YOU DID.

Yeah, and YOU were the person who stole it

And again, you think YOUR point of view of what I should see TRUMPS my point of view of what I should see.

Typical DICTATOR type view.

You are so conceited that you think you are smarter than the Sheeple.

Guess what Michael, you're NOT.

Arthur

 

actually they do, most huggies adds feature naked babies

 

I rewrote my argument, I still think it makes good logical sense.


I hope this doesn't sound rude, but, it's sort of like not noticing the starving child, but complaining about his nudity. You don't find that sort of perverse?


I get your point about not having the choice, yet, that is the point of the artist. To take away your choice to ignore her. She's not willing accept being treated as a second class citizen and she's not going to give you the choice to ignore her anymore. Sure, she's only 20, and her art is amateurish, yet, here she is, in that way 20s 'I'm indestructible' sort of way, seemingly willing to die for it.


Lastly, recall the children in KSA who were forced to die in a burning building, you know, so people didn't see them without their Burka coverings. Something to think about.

 

You seem to be overly perturbed with seeing a nude woman. It's not erotica Arthur and you can find life like painting of naked people right here in this very thread. I really don't see the difference. Care to explain why a photograph capturing of a naked women is bad and a photo-real painting of an adult woman is not?

If her photo were in a modern art museum, I'm fairly certain most'd walk right past it without notice.

 

And again, you think YOUR point of view of what I should see TRUMPS my point of view of what I should see.

You are so conceited that you think you are smarter than the Sheeple.

Guess what Michael, you're NOT.

And who was doing that?
Again, strawman argument.
Nudity, when germaine to the story isn't the issue.
Even so, we let people know ahead of time of the subject matter so they have the CHOICE as to whether they want to see it or not.

No Michael you don't seem to.
If you did you would edit your post and replace it with a LINK to her site.
Because she did not take away my choice at all, to see her naked requires taking steps to do so, but YOU took away the choice from the site's members by displaying the nude pictures inline.

More to the point, people know what "full frontal nudity" is, and right from the beginning that was made clear that was what her pictures were.

Your taking away people's choice added nothing to the discussion.

Arthur

 

Ever see Ron Mueck's statues:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I once saw a group of 8th - 10th graders walking through his gallery on their field trip.

 

And that is YOUR point of view Michael.

Why must everyone conform to YOUR point of view?

Again, I make a CHOICE to go to a museum and even in a museum, I'm typically warned of content ahead of time so I can make a CHOICE.

What about the concept of allowing people to decide for themselves escapes you?

Why is it that you think that what you find acceptable others must as well.

Why do you think YOUR point of view of what I should see TRUMPS my point of view of what I should see?

Eventually I expect you will see the irony of your position.

Then again, maybe not.

Arthur

 

It's about CHOICE Michael.

Clearly the irony of your position, taking away peoples choice, escapes you.

 

Wasn't that the whole point of her making a confronting photographic public?

If so, then you'd think that experiencing that would add to the discussion :shrug:

 

No Michael, she put it on her BLOG.

To see her picture you had to make a CHOICE to do so.

She, unlike you, did not take that choice away from people.

Arthur

 

So, you thought seeing the African took away your choice?

If not, suppose some did think that. Is that wrong? I mean, that's what I'm getting at. You're not supposed to get the choice to pretend African children are starving. It's the whole point in the photograph. Why is her photograph different? Why do you get to ignore her rights?

 

Baaaahhhh.... now I'm repeating myself.



I've added the "full frontal nudity" disclaimer. Even though I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Maybe we can have a debate around that.

 

she didn't.

You did.