Do you find my avatar offensive?

[Adoratrice]

I wanted to clarify that when I said I would not let my child do this ....I meant as a modeling job.


that I would not let my child look up my dress is a given.

 

[Mistress]

I think people are reading a little too much into the pic.

Ditto

 

[Harbinger]

on second thought...

Having read the posts by Adoratrice and KillerMuffin I think I have to reconsider my earlier post. I can see where, in the context of being on this particular site, it could be viewed as inappropriate. Plus, that unless it is a candid photo, which I truly doubt, using a child as a model is something I wouldn't do, either. I mean, I don't know if anybody has ever worked with professional photographers, but that kid probably had to look up her dress fifty times if it was on a GOOD day. Anyway, sorry, but I think I want to change my vote, but I'm not a resident of Florida. I mean, I don't want to make a Federal case out of it, or anything. More to the point, I don't think anyone here wants the Avatar Issue to turn into a Federal case, if you catch my drift.

I still think it's cute, though.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I think it's just representative of a little boy's curiosity and mischieviousness. Naughtiness, if you will. It's only meant to be cute, and I think it is.

You know, like the song "Bad to the Bone".
That's what it reminds me of.

The woman has her hands (or hand) full, and the photo seems to pretend to be candid. It's in the moment he lifts her skirt and she hasn't yet had time to react by dropping her armload and pulling her skirt down.

Yeah, it would be unacceptable if it were a little girl taking a peek at a man's penis. There was a huge commotion within my family when my little cousin accidentally caught a glimpse of an uncle's penis.

But hey - girls are sugar and spice and everything nice. Boys are snakes and snails and puppydog tails.

 

[willywanker]

Okay, I can see what you are saying and I thank you for your thoughtful responses.

I probably jumped the gun by posting this poll and putting people in a position of chosing sides. Please believe that I would never do anything to put any child at risk of being involved in child porn. I have a teen age daughter, a preteen daughter and my wife's daughter has given us two grandaughters. I would gladly spend time in prison for killing anyone who might try anything out of the way with them .

That said, I will begin to look for another avatar but I'm keeping this one til I find something else I like. I still think the little guy is cute and I could have seen myself in his shoes. I hadn't thought about the staged aspect before it wa brought up here. You know your killing my "Kinky Rockwell" personna.

 

[registered "^^"]

That's not a woman, He's looking up the dress of a Tranny!

Keep the pic Willy, unless you want to change it.

 

[Guest]

Before I submit my 2 cents, I'd like to add that I am a lurker, not a troll- there is a big difference.

With that said, I find the av to be inappropriate and I said so in the first thread Todd started about it a few months back. I still find the av to be inappropriate months later and each time I see it, I cringe. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing cute about it. By pulling the women's skirt up, the little boy is showing he has no respect for her as an adult and as a female whatsoever. He views her as many men still view women- as a sex object. What grown women would find a young boy lifting their skirt to, as many of you have put it, "see what's underneath," cute?

I think it's sickening that many women on the board have stated how adorable the picture is even though it is clearly sexist. Using the "boys will be boys" argument disgusts me even more. As a child he's lifting skirts without permission, as a teenager he makes vulgar comments and gestures to females he sees on the street, and as an adult he continues to sexually harass women he comes in contact with. When will the "boys will be boys" mentality cease to be used in defense of behavior that clearly dehumanizes, embarrasses, and above all else damages women?

You may say that I'm taking the entire argument too far, reading too far into it, but after months of viewing that damn thing, I think I have a right to say why I find it offensive. Yes, the av is offensive as is, but it's the message behind it that I find even more offensive.

If you still arent's convinced it's inappropriate, I go back to the same thing I said months earlier- if it depicted a little girl staring at a man's crotch, it would have been considered pedophilia.

 

[SpectreT]

Okay. Here's my problem.

I'm way too freakin' open-minded.

The first time I saw the AV, it made me chuckle. I remember being a six-year-old "Dirty Old Man", being curious, and even knowing a bit more than I probably should've, and that pic was amusingly nostalgic to me. "Cute", in short language.

Then I reasoned out the "staged thing", and felt a little uneasy, but I just assumed, correctly, it turns out, the "Cute" angle was what willywanker was going for, so I ignored it.

It's difficult to find topics or things that offend me, but one thing that does is someone telling anyone else that anything is inapproriate. Are some things wrong? Certainly. Harming someone is a classic example, and one that would take decades to catalogue all the kinds of ways we routinely harm one another and ourselves. The repression, supression, and obsession with expression (Whole lotta "ess" words there) in this country is driving me battier by the microsecond, and the logic train can just as easily lead you to a land where all elephants are pink as it can lead you to a rapist or child molester from that photo.

That said, the mere fact that willywanker asks our opinions in a poll on wether or not he should keep it, is also telling. Whenever someone is asking opinions, they're already looking for some kind of change, or some kind of validation. In this case it was change.

(climbing into my asbestos suit, just in case the lurker has a flamethrower)

 

[Harbinger]

What grown women would find a young boy lifting their skirt to, as many of you have put it, "see what's underneath," cute?

I think it's sickening that many women on the board have stated how adorable the picture is even though it is clearly sexist.

I think I have a problem with the logic of these two statements appearing back to back. I suppose the women on this board are not grown? And you still insist on posting here, knowing that there are female children present? For shame!

I support your right to be offended, I even agree with you on some points, but perhaps it is also an image of innocent curiosity? A very natural curiousity, given that our society is so careful about sex and nudity. Not that such behavior wouldn't require correction in real life, but I think the photo is only intended as a kind of visual gag. Would it make you feel better if we gave the little boy a spanking?

Say, willywanker, any idea where we could find the kid?

 

[Blackbich]

Willy the people that know and love you are the ones that matter. Not people that judge just to be judging.

Keep it til YOU want to change it.

Yeah, what Shylady said!!

 

[Blackbich]

I think it's just representative of a little boy's curiosity and mischieviousness. Naughtiness, if you will. It's only meant to be cute, and I think it is.

Ditto!!!

 

[Mistress]

Actually I think the whole thing is ridiculous, there isn't really anything sexual about the picture. It's child curiousity. And to say it shows that the child has no respect for women and yada yada yada is silly! It's just a picture, and it's just a child, how many children do you know that actually 'respect' an adult in everything they do? I think some of you are reading too much into it........


Alot of little boys have tried to look up women's skirts/dresses-curiousity, many just want to see if the others are like their mother or sister. And to say the woman is doing nothing to stop him is silly as well, it's a picture nothing more nothing less.

 

[Doulton]

(I wrote this before I saw Mistress's post, so I have repeated to some extent what she has said. Glad to see someone else who agrees on those points)
I didn't even realise what the picture was showing until Todd pointed it out. I knew it was a little kid and a woman with a short skirt, but I didn't realise her skirt was being lifted up. I'm too young for my eyesight to be going...
As for the people who claim that offence is the passive act of the viewer and not the responsibilty or fault of the poster, I often go to say the same sort of thing. But then I think, how would I react if it was a picture of a Nazi executing a Jew with some logo supportive of Nazism, or a picture of a woman being raped? To be honest I'm somewhat undecided on that point. If I saw those things it would certainly make me very angry and probably make me think the person who posted it was a complete arsehole. But I'm still not sure whether or not I think they should have the right to post those pictures anyway.
Someone said the pic made them think the kid had been sexually abused. Others say it's inappropriate behaviour. I think those are both untrue . Sure it's inappropriate, but only in the same way as if he'd started drawing on her face with a crayon. For a child that young, there is no strong distinction or taboo relating to sex or nudity. The kid probably still takes his clothes off and runs around his house naked. Sure, he may well be motivated by sexual urges, but to him those urges are no different to any other form of curiosity. Sure, he needs to be taught that that behaviour is inappropriate, but do people kick up a fuss when a picture is shown of a child refusing to share his toys? This is no big deal as far as the kid is concerned, so why should other people make a big deal out of it? He may grow up to be a sexist arsehole if nobody tells him it's wrong to look up women's skirts, but that's no worse than growing up extremely greedy if nobody teaches him to share his toys. Someone said they wouldn't let their kid do this if it was an arranged photo shoot. What's the harm? You tell your kid that this is a one off thing and that he is never to do it again. There are plenty of ads that show other inappropriate behaviour of children, and their parents presumably deal with it and set limits for them in the real world. And I'm sure she would have been wearing underwear (assuming it was an arranged thing.)
Some people would kick up more of a stink if it was a girl and a man. Sure they would, I would certainly be put off by it myself. But perhaps the lesson we should mearn from that is back to front in some people's minds. The reason we would find that more offensive is because of the connotations we hold with child abuse and the different genders. More pedophiles are males than females (as far as I know, although that is somewhat of an asumption) and males are generally more aggresive in the pursuit of sex. So a shot of a man and a girl seems more likely to us to be an indication of sexual abuse. But if it were a real photo, a picture of a girl looking for a man's penis would probably be no more harmful than the the boy and the woman. But that is assuming she is doing out of her own motivation, and hasn't been asked or pursuaded by the man to do so. If you saw these shots in real life and had no information relating to the context of the event, then in the case of a man and a girl I think there would be more cause for alarm, but with good reason. As I said, in that situation I think it would be a lot more likely that the man was a pedophile and that the situation required intervention. So just because the photo may be inappropriate for a man and a girl, doesn't mean it should necessarily be equally inappropriate for a woman and a boy. The genders are not the same in all respects, and treating them like they are is not always a good idea. Assuming the photo of a girl and a man was arranged, it would be just as harmless to her as the other photo to the boy.

A wanker is someone who masturbates, not the penis itself. I still find it hard to come to terms with the fact that you don't have that word, or tosser, in America. They're such great words

 

[thumbs2_ca]

geez Doulton you sure know how to make a long story really long. lol

 

[TWB]

Huh?

I think that this is a good example of the great self-regulation on this site.

Besides, Since I turned avitars off, I don't know what you are talking about nor do I see any of it.


TWB

 

[LRC]

Actually I think the whole thing is ridiculous, there isn't really anything sexual about the picture. It's child curiousity. And to say it shows that the child has no respect for women and yada yada yada is silly! It's just a picture, and it's just a child, how many children do you know that actually 'respect' an adult in everything they do? I think some of you are reading too much into it........


Alot of little boys have tried to look up women's skirts/dresses-curiousity, many just want to see if the others are like their mother or sister. And to say the woman is doing nothing to stop him is silly as well, it's a picture nothing more nothing less.

All I can add to the above is ........

Where is everyone's sense of humor?


PS Willy .... keep it if you want ..... I think it's funny!

 

[Doulton]

geez Doulton you sure know how to make a long story really long. lol

I know...*Pout* Damn BB is like a disease for me. I just can't resist laying out all my thoughts on these topics. I meant to just pop in and have a quick look to see if there was anything interesting, and I've ended up spending about 2 hours here writing these long posts. And can you believe that this is me being restrained?

 

[Cheyenne]

The first time I saw it, it made me chuckle. I assume that is what you were going for.

Keep it.

 

[Mensa]

Tempest in a teapot

Since you asked willywanker, I'll say that I'll save my outrage for a more deserving target, thank you!

Such an inoffensive avatar is hardly worthy. If willywanker decides to keep it, fine by me. If, on the other hand, he decides to replace it, also fine by me. It's his choice and I'll leave him to make it.

 

[lobito]

ok, my two cents...

keep in mind I'm a graphic artist.

The av in question has been "claimed" by one here to be real, but from a graphic artist, I can tell you that it would take all of about 20 minutes start to finish to produce a photo of a woman, doing one thing, and the child doing something totally unrelated, and having them made to look like one photo.

I too thought it cute if not shocking at first, and yes it does resemble quite a bit, Norman Rockwells' painting of years ago, in fact at first, I thought it was one.

L