by BStorage » Mar 4, 2006 3:38 am
I finally got my Feb News and saw the photo. Then I read this discussion thread. While consensus and "community standards" can only be determined by collecting opinion such as those posted here, I wonder if web discussion groups are more subject to grandstanding than face-to-face discussion would be.
Someone called that photo "porn". ReallY? Can anyone living in the US in 2006, having any contact with printed or TV advertisements really think that is porn? Or do they mean to say instead that their OPINION is that the photo has too much skin for the NSS News.
Someone else offered that only middle-aged men have interest in such stuff. Is the implication then is that since others are not interested, the photo shouldn't appear? In any case, an educated profession woman I know saw some of Dave's cave nudes and hired me to shoot similar pix of her. My wife ended up doing a lot of the photography on that session. There's two cases of interest by non cave perves. There may be more. If subject matter popularity and connection to the NSS charter are key for judging what deserves coverage (or space on the Convention agenda), then dump the cave ballads too.
A few folks stated that they were offended. If true, I suspect that their taking offense is a choice that they have made after considering their position on whether such shots are good for the NSS, instead of their gut reaction to seeing the photo. I suppose it's possible that some modern American might truly be offended, but would such offense pass the reasonble man test. I.e., is it reasonable to be offended by a beard or a hairstyle.
Then the arguments on the grounds of safety and conservation... Right.