Joe, just scroll up the thread. The artist mentioned that his photo was much like the one of the same group of sculpture that is on the brochure above. Although it is not his actual photo, I assume it will give you an idea of what you missed. The thing that saddens me is that the way the TOS are enforced seems to me to be a victory of content over context. Personally, I would like to see it the other way around. If the context is not overtly one of sexual arousal (a photo of an African fertility fetish -- or this Voodoo sculpture, for example), I frankly don't care how many erect penises there are in the work. Context to me is way more imporant than content. (Which is why I wish that logiloglu could have told me more about the actual symbolism involved in the work -- that goes to really understanding the context.) On the other hand, if the context is overtly sexual (back to that pretty half naked lady with her hand down her pants), again, I don't care if her nipples are erect or not, that's an image I think violates the TOS. (Still think it's a nifty picture however ... wish I looked half that good.) But, in all honesty, this has been an interesting discussion. Although I shouldn't have blown half the work day participating in it.

Could be worse, could be raining.