Attached Link: http://www.photo-genesis.net

I've debated about whether to start this thread. Debated if it would make a bit of difference. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if it will make a difference as long as an "opposing view" is presented. So here goes. A couple of days ago one of the images in the photography gallery was removed because it would cause the viewer to become "aroused". It was a statue of a voodoo guy that sits in a park in Paris. The image showed the *statue's* penis. Has R'osity started taking itself so seriously that there's no longer room for humor on the site? Can it no longer laugh with the rest of us when a humorous image is posted? I could *almost* agree if it were an image of a real person. Ok...there's kids that possibly come online and that wouldn't be cool. But for Christ's sake...this was a freakin' *STATUE* people! And one that's in a *public* park. To make matters worse, this was an image posted by a photograher who has to be one of the most talented individuals I've ever had the honor of knowing. His work could easily reside in any gallery in the world. Any *real* gallery...brick and mortar...where people walk in and view works of *art*. Where it wouldn't be *censored* because of some imagined "arousal factor" it might possess. Maybe someone can answer this: why was this image removed with all haste and the "figure studies" of nude men and women are allowed to reside in the galleries unmolested? While these don't bother me personally, some of them actually border on pornographic. (I hesitate to even bring that up...for fear that they'll also be removed. Which certainly isn't my intention.) Why is it that any of the computer generated images can basically be of what the program user wants them to be of? An example of this is a very fine work showing a nude woman from behind. As far as I know, it's still on R'osity. I'll let ya in on a little secret folks...if I'm gonna sport wood it's gonna be over something like that rather than a damned *statue* in a park! Everyone has a right to decide *for themselves* what they will and will not view. I didn't see the thumb for the "offending image" but i'm sure it followed the photographer's normal pattern...it showed the complete image. If someone is offended by the thumb...well then DUH!...don't load the damned full sized image. Problem resolved and no "aroused viewers" in the pristine world of R'osity. I, for one, don't appreciate having my moral values decided for me by R'osity or its agents. It's 20 years after "1984" R'osity...catch a freakin' hint! Are you concerned about the flap Janet Jackson's tit caused? Believe me...in addition to *that* being stupid as hell, R'osity doesn't have quite the "viewership" the NFL has. I hardly think the FCC will come down on ya. Or are you just taking yourselves too seriously? Lighten up some and I'll bet ya have a much better time. Start by putting the image with the "significant arousal factor" back online and I for one won't feel quite as soiled or manipulated and you won't be the laughing stock of real galleries. Or do the French just look at things differently than the residents of Nashville?