Facebook Prude-Patrol Nixes Another Work Of Art By A Feminist, Entirely Proving Her Decades-Old Point

from the get-licked dept

Wed, Feb 10th 2016 12:50pm — Timothy Geigner

We're still fresh on the heels of Facebook's overly broad and prudish decency rules resulting in the takedown of a bronze piece of artwork in the form of a mermaid statue that features bare metal breasts. Womens' breasts, as we all know, are shameful things to be hidden from view, lest they corrupt the minds of the young children that were so nourished by them in their youth. Sigh.

Still, as dumb as that story was, and as indicative as it was of the problem of overly broad censorship guidelines employed in the name of decency, at least there were breasts. Metallic breasts, but breasts nonetheless. I have no idea how Facebook keeps this recent story from looking even more silly, in which it takes down a piece of artwork shared by Philidelphia Museum of Art that was constructed specifically to show how objectified women were in the 1960s.

The piece was created in 1964 by artist Evelyne Axell and is entitled "Ice Cream," because it is a stylized painting of a woman enjoying an ice cream cone. The entire point of the piece was to challenge society on how it views women as sexual objects before anything else, such that this image of an everyday occurrence appears tantalizing when it should not.

The museum's new post includes more details on the artwork: " 'Ice Cream' (1964) was painted by Evelyne Axell, one of the first female Pop artists. Her work can be understood as a critique of mainstream Pop Art, in which women were often depicted as passive, decorative objects. In contrast, Axell sought to depict active, confident women who pursue satisfaction on their own terms—such as the protagonist of "Ice Cream," who unabashedly enjoys her dessert. Axell’s provocative paintings challenge artistic conventions while also exhibiting a liberated, playful spirit characteristic of the sexual revolution of the 1960s."

Ironically, Facebook's removal of the original post with the image of the painting, due to it "containing excessive amounts of skin or suggestive content", exemplifies the entire point of the painting. Not only is there nothing in terms of skin to view in the painting, the "suggestive content" that Facebook is reacting to is only suggestive by way of society's myopic view on women as sexual objects. It's a woman enjoying an ice cream, not a woman performing the sex act that immediately leaps to mind. I'll admit I had the same reaction as Facebook at first, because I'm part of the exact society upon which the piece is commenting. That's the point.

For Facebook to take that down says nothing about its view on decency, but everything about how prudish censorship programs are too often employed to the detriment of much-needed culture.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: art, censorship, evelyne axell, facebook feed, ice cream, pop art, prude, trust and safety
Companies: facebook, philadelphia museum of art

55 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

BigKeithO, 10 Feb 2016 @ 1:01pm

That is kind of crazy. That picture totally seems sexual to me, well played Evelyne Axell, well played. Apparently I am a misogynist and a horrible person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 1:23pm

Re:
Why would you think you could be consider misogynist if the picture appears sexual to you?

Just means your mind is in the gutter and there is not a human alive that has not had a dip or few in that gutter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sctoe, 10 Feb 2016 @ 1:23pm

Seems sexual to you because it was meant to
""The entire point of the piece was to challenge society on how it views women as sexual objects before anything else, such that this image of an everyday occurrence appears tantalizing when it should not. "

Sorry, but that *particular*, not very tapered ice cream cone with the glans-like scoop at the top is not an everyday occurrence. It was painted by an artist known for her erotic art, and is, I would say, deliberately sexual. Any guilt felt for noting that resemblance in this particular instance is entirely misplaced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 1:24pm

I must say that I like the painting. Strong colours and a subtle provocation without breaking the ice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Feb 2016 @ 1:26pm

Re: Seems sexual to you because it was meant to
I don't recall saying that I felt guilty, only that my immediate and visceral perceptions were the very thing being challenged deliberately by the piece....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 1:41pm

You know, we could just collectively decide to rob Facebook of this censorship power by not using it. Good thing for Techdirt we don't though, these stories pay the bills!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 1:52pm

EVERYTHING with those femroids is ALWAYS sexual. I try to not associate with extremist of any types who like to pretend they are never ending victims of some man or boy saying, "Hello".
Basically the feminists are no different than the insecure cop that feels he (or OMG maybe she) NEEDS to beat down people to fulfill their power-trip addiction. feminism is a hate group if you read up on the history of the WKKK. (womens klan).
They want attention and should be ignored.

(also I am sure that as opposed as techdirt likes to pretend it is against censorship this comment will be deleted too, but that's ok)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 2:19pm

Re:
Welp... this is the natural course for anyone that has been wronged in the past.

Women have been wronged... you bet... but now instead of just swinging the pendulum to the middle where it needs to be, it is being swung to the other side where men are now being emasculated and anything man is just misogynistic in nature.

This is the same crap with the now white guilt, and hetero-phobic comments coming from the gay rights crowd where anything other than 100% support for the gay platform is bigotry that needs to addressed in a way that destroys people lives.

At the end of the day... people just like to bully others and the ones in the majority or loudest voice are the ones typically doing the bullying, even when they claim to just be getting compensation for their past troubles.

People were racist, it needs to stop but everyone is racist.
People were gender biased, but every is gender biased.

We are a pack of biased little idiots and the sooner we realize it the better and then, maybe need we can all be big enough to talk about our problems without getting all murderous on each other...

yea right who am I kidding we are terrible and evil and there will never be peace until there is only 1 culture left on the planet.

Let see who wins? I got the popcorn!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2016 @ 2:23pm

The censorship is itself obscene
To any innocent child thei si simply a picture of a woman eating an icecream. The act of censorship itself destroys that innocence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 2:41pm

That pic was clearly sexually or at least enough people thought so to report and have it removed. Facebook has always had a fem-slant to the entire thing from the start of it. And then there was that one facebook ceo lady who complained that men needed to do 100% of the hose work instead of the normal 50%.

"Women have been wronged... you bet" Where? Can you prove that outside of copypasta from fem-wikipedia?
Can you show me where women are at in the western world slaving away in cotton fields?

It does get old tho them seeing all males as sexual objects.

And remember kids women only make 7 cents to every $10,000 a man makes and and on college campuses 1000 out of every 4 women will be raped 500 times every day (or what ever stats the lame-stream media decides to invent this week)

And here all along I thought that Techdirt was above falling into the trap or being used by the fem-establishment

The only respectable womens rights person I've ever saw or heard of is Christina Hoff Summers who actually wants some fairness and not female supremacy and bigoted hate that the rest of them see to specialize it.

I will not help a feminist if I ever see one in trouble or else I would probably be accused and arrested for rape, sexism, racism (with no evidence)

And I don't see why they are even bothering to complain about censorship since they seem to like it (when it's against men or medicating boys for playing with hot-wheels cars or what ever other "destructive" urges)
https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-and-american-feminists-push-plan-for-total-censorshi p-of-the-internet/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 3:30pm

Re:
Just because you get a stiffy does not mean you are misogynistic.

A misogynist is a person who hates women.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 3:42pm

Re: Seems sexual to you because it was meant to
I am sorry, sir. I have seen a penis, sir, and that ice cream cone does not look like a penis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 3:52pm

This whole only-women-are-objectified nonsense is getting rather old considering that plenty of male and female models/entertainers/actors openly choose to objectify themselves here in our modern and free civilizations.

If anything, it's mindless millennial feminists that likely got that photo flagged since a large part of the movement involves anti-freedom of speech rhetoric and sexism/racism towards strait white men. I.E. 'Die White Male CIS Scum'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MikeC (profile), 10 Feb 2016 @ 4:05pm

Gender Wars
"We are a pack of biased little idiots and the sooner we realize it the better and then, maybe need we can all be big enough to talk about our problems without getting all murderous on each other...

yea right who am I kidding we are terrible and evil and there will never be peace until there is only 1 culture left on the planet."

I created a desert and called it peace...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 10 Feb 2016 @ 4:55pm

Have you seen SFW Porn?
Have you seen the porn made "safe for work," with various bits covered up with drawings, such as ice cream cones much like the one in question?

(I'm not going to Google it to give you a link because reasons...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 5:09pm

Less skin/scandal
I was mystified at first when I read that Facebook thought too much skin was showing in that piece. It only shows her face! Then I realized what they must have intended. The obvious solution would be to modify the painting so that the woman is wearing a burqa. That must be what Facebook wants, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Feb 2016 @ 6:33pm

It seems sexual because I as a human being am pretty sexually biased.
I'm not particularly into fellatio, but it's a painting of a human with feminine features, and so part of my brain processes how much I want to have sex with her. (She's cute, so quite a lot.)

Objectifying her would be saying that she is only an object for sexual gratification, and not a person with rights. I don't agree with this, but we have a lot of elements of society (including no small number of laws) that do, for instance the restrictions on her abortion and birth control access due to the religious beliefs of others.

In fact, it is a very anti-erotic culture (thanks to 1500+ years of Judeo-Christian rule) that causes us to regard sex as a gutter-worthy topic, and that thinking about this woman sexually makes us wrong. (And that's conflated with thinking about her as only a sexual object.)

So long as you still respect her and acknowledge her rights (including the right to not fuck you), it's okay to be titillated by her eating ice cream.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 7:01pm

Re: Re: Seems sexual to you because it was meant to
But wait! There's a head that kind of looks human but is it female? No body, so hard to say. The ice cream cone doesn't look like a penis, but everyone who looks at it seems to think it's a penis. No wonder Facebook censored it. It raises too many questions such as, what actually is all that green and blue stuff? Probably that's what makes the whole affair so profoundly... whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 8:53pm

Re:
Wow, just wow.
WKKK?

On the positive side maybe one day you'll get a girlfriend and you can put all this nonsense behind you (though what you wrote today will still be there, to taunt you)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 10:50pm

Re: Re:
"A misogynist is a person who hates women."

Not in today's usage. In today's usage a misogynist is anyone who doesn't believe men should be reviled for having a penis. Really, go look at the petulant children always crying misogyny, and you won 't find much if any misogyny there. Modern feminism is a joke, and a rather cruel one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheman, 10 Feb 2016 @ 11:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
I agree 100% with you comments. It's funny how over the last year I've heard that everything from air conditioning to Hawaiian shirts worn by scientists who land a spacecraft of a comet are sexist™ and mistreat every last woman they come into contact with.
It's always interesting to see the fem-centric ladies and vagina-begger boys alike give females the benefit of the doubt towards their claims without a shred of proof, and no matter how petty, impossible, non-existent, or improbable. As if it's some kind of blasphemy to even ask questions.
Now I don't like censorship either and if this story is even true, it should never have happened but as is normal, I expect Techdirt to stay totally silent when it's tthe feminists demanding the censorship like they went to the UN and tried to do. I figured that tech-dirt would be smarter than that. I saw someone above mention the old Womens KKK and I've read a few articles about that and it seems to be the origins of the feminist hate movement, but most of them either don't know that or refuse to admit it. As for myself I am gay and don't know why in the heck men tolerate this kind of attention whoring from females. I learned early on that most girls seem to like some drama and conflict in their daily lives, positive or negative (and that goes triple for those that lie and claim they don't)
Males are already disadvantaged when compared with females society-wise, six-ways from Sunday.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheman, 10 Feb 2016 @ 11:18pm

Re: Re:
According to feminists, it takes less than that... like being born with "the wrong" private parts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 1:37am

Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lisa Westveld (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 2:19am

Double standard at Facebook
It might be interesting to know that there are groups on Facebook that discuss all kinds of erotic things and even contain erotic images without Facebook responding to them. One of them would be https://www.facebook.com/groups/Rooieoortjes which happens to exist for a long time already and often shares nudity and mild pornography. (It's a closed group, though.) And I know that some people have tried to report the group, but it just continues to exist. Facebook does not take any action against it. And the banned picture is quite tame compared with the contents of this group.
So, Facebook has no problem with porn, as long as it happens in closed groups...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Musashi, 11 Feb 2016 @ 2:47am

Well I'm without words...
I know it's [current year] but I, after all I've seen happening in Western Modern Democracies for the past few years, sometimes I'm still left speechless.

Let's take a moment to let this fact sink in for a moment:

A decade and a half into the 21ft Century, the dominant brand in social media, and one of the three most important companies in the entire Information Techonolgy and Science Revolution, has unilaterally de-platformed a 60 years old piece of art, effectively removing it from the public's eye and preventing it's appreciation and the conversation it intended to elicit, with this rationalization:

It is not allowed to be displayed because of "containing excessive amounts of skin or suggestive content"

Does anybody else think that this action is expected (or at least somewhat explainable) in regimes such as North Korea, Iran, Irak, Afghanistan, China? Or is it just me that feels a cognitive dissonance the size of Silicon Valley?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violynne (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 3:15am

Re:
Of course you would, as would damn near every other person on the planet because the first response would be "How the fuck is that ice cream?"

THAT is the point, to artificially create an object to resemble (by one hell of a stretch of imagination) something that most people wouldn't think of when seeing what they know they're seeing.

Clever attempt, but poor execution.

Not that any of this matters. Facebook is in the wrong, especially when its own damn definition of "suggestive content".

Think about it. What the hell does "suggestive content" mean and why in the hell is that phrase related to sexual content only?

Wouldn't an ISIS recruitment post be considered "suggestive content"? No, of course not. That's "terrorist propaganda".

:eye rolling icon desperately needed here:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 4:13am

Re: It seems sexual because I as a human being am pretty sexually biased.
Amen.

I actually think that suggestive things are actually what makes sex so great. I mean, obviously the act itself is awesome but what leads to it and/or suggests it is also amazing.

Other than that I do think we need more things like that paint focused on women in general. I personally don't know what would be a suggestive alternative to a girl savoring an ice cream in a sensual way but with a guy so that's a job for the creative girls out there. But it would be interesting to see a more even playing field there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
trollificus (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 4:50am

So...are we to really be against censorship, or just censorship that affects works by right-thinking creators? Because it sure seems a point of emphasis here that this work is by a FEMINIST, conveying an approved message ridiculing/attacking/criticizing the patriarchy, (this=rightthink) and therefore the very kind of thing we especially want to protect

Do we really need to appeal to the valorization of victimhood, or apply some "Oppressed Group Membership Scorecard" to work against censorship, when it can be done from first principles and logic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 5:03am

I thought ice cream cone before i thought dick, maybe I am just weird.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 6:13am

Re: Have you seen SFW Porn?
That's what I was going to say. Considering that she blocked out whatever it is she is licking (even if it really is an ice cream cone) she wants people to think "porn" then say that's wrong even though she pointed us in that direction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 6:59am

Re: Re: Re:
In your head maybe.
I doubt a large percentage of sane people actually think that. Sounds more like macho bullshit to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 7:02am

Hold on a second. Where in the story does it say the complaint was lodged by a feminist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 7:21am

Re: Re: Re:
I do think there is a portion of them that are like that yes much like there are incredibly chauvinist women (yes, you read right). But I don't think we should let this very loud minority invalidate the whole, justified cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 7:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spend 10 minutes here https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 8:18am

Re:
Try not to cut yourself on all that edge. I don't think breitbart has a medical plan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 11 Feb 2016 @ 8:35am

Easily rectified.
All that the picture needs in order to be acceptable to Facebook is a burqa.

I don't want to go back to the state before Western Civilization and the Sexual Revolution (which affected both attire and its meaning). But it's easier for us to pretend that our normality has always been like it is than it is for people from other cultures.

This is a reminder. I am afraid that it's also sort of a comment on a fundamental backfiring of feminism: positive body conscience and sexualization/objectification are inseparable. You feel good about yourself for the same signals that make other people feel good about you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 10:02am

Make it a banana...
Get Naruto to take a Selfie with a banana and we can get the Monkiests in on it too...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 10:07am

Re:
This whole only-women-are-objectified nonsense is getting rather old considering that plenty of male and female models/entertainers/actors openly choose to objectify themselves here in our modern and free civilizations.

That doesn't make it nonsense, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 10:10am

Re:
This censorship is particularly ironic. TechDirt doesn't have time to cover every act of censorship everywhere. I can remember them covering incidents of colleges censoring students or faculty, and there wasn't any undercurrent of feminism or liberalism in those stories, and of course much of the copyright coverage here is about censorship. TD is generally pro-freedom of speech, but if there's a censorship story you think they're missing, submit it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 10:46am

Ice cream cone before dick.
You could also be hungry, or have a predilection for ice cream.

I think the obsession on fellatio is an American thing. Not exclusively American, but other cultures aren't as fixated about getting their wangs sucked.

Considering that some cultures are afraid of vagina dentata (cooches with teeth that bite) I think the US is somewhat removed from those, considering we're eager to stuff our puds into orifices that very definitely have teeth, and structure with which to bite down hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 12:21pm

Who was it that decided this picture should be removed?
feminist?
american taliban?
vanilla ISIS?
Y'allQueda?

There are plenty of people out there who would happily tell you what you can and can not do, based entirely upon their criteria and not upon any reality based analysis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2016 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is sexist the same as misogynistic?
I think not, but perhaps you can provide reasons why they are the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2016 @ 7:21am

Re: Less skin/scandal
It is what FaceBook Taliban want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 12 Feb 2016 @ 9:58am

I'd like to thank all those who participated in this performance.
I can't remember enjoying any as enlightening, concise, and brilliantly performed spectacle as this. The script, casting, acting performances, and everything was just brilliantly handled.

Better than Shakespeare in one short act. Bravo. Now that's art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 12 Feb 2016 @ 10:04am

Re:
Apparently I am a misogynist and a horrible person.

Or, as a biological entity and person, there is really nothing evil about sexual acts on their own. Your misogyny is just your imagination running over. Enjoy the ride.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 12 Feb 2016 @ 10:17am

Re:
(also I am sure that as opposed as techdirt likes to pretend it is against censorship this comment will be deleted too ...

You're funny. Stupid, but funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 12 Feb 2016 @ 10:27am

Re: Re:
... (though what you wrote today will still be there, to taunt you)

I think you misspelled "haunt." Anyway, it's best if we individuals learn from others' mistakes, but even the best of us have to learn from our own sometimes. It's just an expensive education. Maybe he'll learn from it, maybe not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 12 Feb 2016 @ 10:30am

Re: The censorship is itself obscene
To any innocent child thei si simply a picture of a woman eating an icecream.

Yes, and that makes this learned behavior. What kind of pervert would teach a kid that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 12 Feb 2016 @ 10:47am

Re: Easily rectified.
I don't want to go back to the state before Western Civilization and the Sexual Revolution (which affected both attire and its meaning).

You got me wondering, "Does this person remember codpieces?"

We are very often very mixed up entities and that goes back a long way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2016 @ 8:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is sexist the same as misogynistic?
I think not, but perhaps you can provide reasons why they are the same.

Try a dictionary (other than your own), such as Merriam-Webster.
sexism: unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 15 Feb 2016 @ 10:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try a dictionary (other than your own), such as Merriam-Webster.
sexism: unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women

And misogyny is "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women", so it would appear they are slightly different. Firstly, the definition of sexism you provided isn't specific to either sex, while misogyny is. Second, one can be misogynistic without actually treating women unfairly, and one can treat women unfairly because of their sex for reasons other than misogyny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2016 @ 9:32pm

Re: Re: Seems sexual to you because it was meant to
having seen both penises and ice cream in cones it looks at least as much like one as the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 10:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Seems sexual to you because it was meant to
The point is via artistry, one can be the other interchangeably. So, where to go then?

First, understand art. Perhaps then you won't be shocked and then do silly things in reaction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2016 @ 8:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Seems sexual to you because it was meant to
Who said anything about being shocked? I find little shocking about either penises or ice cream.

I fail to see what silly thing I've done, either. I've just said it doesn't look any more like one then the other. It only looks vaguely phallic, and only vaguely ice creamic (yes, I made that word up, but I'm standing by it).

Generally, I don't see any reason to censor it, but it's farcebook's server. They can censor anything they like for any reason or no reason. If something about this whole affair was going to shock me, it would be that, and frankly it's hardly the first time I've seen silly censorship (or even on the top 100 egregious cases of it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nop (profile), 28 Feb 2016 @ 10:17pm

Re:
You're missing the point. It's not accusing you of being a misogynist for misinterpreting the image, it's making the point that we - all of us - are taught by society to interpret pictures in sexual ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]