Oh and PS: In defense of lawyers, any individual's lack of understanding does not necessarily mean the waters are muddy ... just that that individual is not getting the message. And, Gerhard, are you saying that the antique statue was not vandalized, but that you removed the penis through postwork?? If so, your saying that you did not do any postwork is what is confusing me in this case. If in fact that piece was intended as a protest, well, then more power to you. However, since that classic sculpture did not show an individual with an erection, clearly that photo, even with penis intact, would not have violated the TOS. Personally, I think the more forceful protest was your display of the original piece in this thread with the penis blacked out and your posts here. Except for some misunderstandings (that I think come more from English not being your primary language), I think what you said made a lot of sense. And as noted before, I don't think that statue - although in violation of the letter of the TOS (no erect penises allowed) - was in violation of the spirit of the TOS in that it did not depict a state of sexual arousal. On the other hand, the image that was linked to from this thread depicting the half naked woman was, in my opinion the exact opposite ... it may not have violated the letter of the TOS, but in it's depiction of sexual arousal, it violates the spirit by a long margin.

Could be worse, could be raining.