That's a pretty long list of whine in the introductory paragraphs. Couldn't make it beyond slut shamed, so I'm unable to decide of she has a point about the pube situation.
...actually, this is funny. Given the way the youth (30 and under crowd) are perpetually told that they're special, that everything they do is wonderful, its not surprising that they find any sort of rejection of their "specialness" to be a dire insult.
Let us hope Instagram never shuts someone down for showing a picture of a woman's foot that has five toes.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2236039/Off-pinky-How-high-heel-obsessed-women-removing-toes-stiletto-surgery-comfier-fit.html , for those going "huh")
I hate the big, overblown whine fest at the open, too, and she didn't help herself any with all the language of the aggrieved victim. HOWEVER, I do think she has a point. Our utterly ridiculous squeamishness or piety or prudishness about stuff like this is laughable. I want to know Instagram's reason for killing her acct. If it's the pubic hair thing, then Instagram is an ass. Period.
.squeamishness or piety or prudishness about stuff like this is laughable. I want to know Instagram's reason for killing her acct. If it's the pubic hair thing, then Instagram is an ass. Period.
All societies have lines of what is acceptable and what is not. There's nothing wrong with that. It's good, actually. There's no reason everything should be acceptable.
Instagram is a company that has set its own lines of propriety. Just like Facebook. If you and she want something else, find a way to deliver it.
Good old-fashioned Canadian B-E-A-V-E-R. Patriotic as can be, especially for northerners who live, ah, in the bush.
The official magazine of Hudson's Bay Company was for decades called 'Beaver' in reference to their origins as fur traders, but in recent years felt the need to change their name because they were getting so many subscriptions cancelled because "this wasn't what I expected".
The official magazine of Hudson's Bay Company was for decades called 'Beaver' in reference to their origins as fur traders, but in recent years felt the need to change their name because they were getting so many subscriptions cancelled because "this wasn't what I expected".
And if you go to a "Beavers game" in Oregon, that also might not be you expected.
She had a pretty good point [only pretty good instead of great because Instagram is a private company facing the welter of conflicting pornography laws we all live under] till she embroidered it with victimization-speak, which may well be her only reservoir of argumentation. Geez, I hate the term "slut-shaming".
OK, she shows up a contradiction - everything is allowed but now this was not allowed. But I think you shouldn't wear a bikini (or anything else) unless you are going to look good in it. That picture looked as if it taken inside with no inside filter and that green color wasn't that good with her skin. It was like a shot in like Blade Runner - very depressing. Why shoot a depressing bikini picture of yourself? or why shoot a bikini picture of yourself and post it and then whine about men and what they say?
The advice is too generic. The only reasonable response will be determined by a consensus of principles. Any other response would imply that there are selective or ambiguous boundaries to personal behavior, appearance, etc.
As for the unqualified "disgusted" description, the issue is likely disruptive, not aesthetic appeal.
The pubic hair defines the area shown as sexual and therefore is of itself sexual and expected to be covered by clothing by common standards. If the area is shaved, the acceptable exposure extends into a longer abdomen and longer thighs. It would still be unacceptable to show shaven genitalia uncovered by clothing. The issue is one of common standards of sexual exposure not of trying to control this woman's shaving habits.
This is left feminist "patriarchal conspiracy theory" in action, policing other women's free choices as to what they do with their pubes. Amongst other things.
There is no repression or oppression that forces anybody to shave their junk.
There is no oppression or censorship in removing a pic from a website under a violation of the TOS. She can rent her own URL and post her hairy panty line pic's all day long and no one would care.
Feminists are really a pack of immature cry-babies quite frankly. They make a statement, someone disagrees, so they are being "oppressed!".
But, really, she is just bitching about not wanting to be held to the social conformity of the hipster crowd, which is uniformly progressive.
"Its' natural". Yea so is farting, bad breath, being eaten alive, malaria and asbestos. "Natural" doesn't always mean "preferable and desirable".
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
३७ टिप्पण्या:
oh....it's Canadian pubic hair!
That explains everything!!
How about a photo with snot dripping out of my nose...its natural, folks!
Peter would be so thrilled.
That's a pretty long list of whine in the introductory paragraphs. Couldn't make it beyond slut shamed, so I'm unable to decide of she has a point about the pube situation.
Hairstyles??
Get her a merkin.
Too boring to read beyond the aforementioned whines, so any rationale as to WHY the pic was posted? Any purpose served?
Tira di più un pelo di figa che un carro di buoi.
...actually, this is funny. Given the way the youth (30 and under crowd) are perpetually told that they're special, that everything they do is wonderful, its not surprising that they find any sort of rejection of their "specialness" to be a dire insult.
Let us hope Instagram never shuts someone down for showing a picture of a woman's foot that has five toes.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2236039/Off-pinky-How-high-heel-obsessed-women-removing-toes-stiletto-surgery-comfier-fit.html , for those going "huh")
I hate the big, overblown whine fest at the open, too, and she didn't help herself any with all the language of the aggrieved victim. HOWEVER, I do think she has a point. Our utterly ridiculous squeamishness or piety or prudishness about stuff like this is laughable. I want to know Instagram's reason for killing her acct. If it's the pubic hair thing, then Instagram is an ass. Period.
Can't blame her for being pissed.
.squeamishness or piety or prudishness about stuff like this is laughable. I want to know Instagram's reason for killing her acct. If it's the pubic hair thing, then Instagram is an ass. Period.
All societies have lines of what is acceptable and what is not. There's nothing wrong with that. It's good, actually. There's no reason everything should be acceptable.
Instagram is a company that has set its own lines of propriety. Just like Facebook. If you and she want something else, find a way to deliver it.
And I might suggest she consider why she posted it.
Who knows? Maybe she's so stupid that she really doesn't know why that picture got her in the doghouse?
Who knows? Maybe she's so stupid that she really doesn't know why that picture got her in the doghouse?
Just try and blame this problem on Bush, phx.
Good old-fashioned Canadian B-E-A-V-E-R. Patriotic as can be, especially for northerners who live, ah, in the bush.
The official magazine of Hudson's Bay Company was for decades called 'Beaver' in reference to their origins as fur traders, but in recent years felt the need to change their name because they were getting so many subscriptions cancelled because "this wasn't what I expected".
I feel old. Young men would have felt all stimulated by that photo back in the day.
The official magazine of Hudson's Bay Company was for decades called 'Beaver' in reference to their origins as fur traders, but in recent years felt the need to change their name because they were getting so many subscriptions cancelled because "this wasn't what I expected".
And if you go to a "Beavers game" in Oregon, that also might not be you expected.
Just try and blame this problem on Bush, phx.
Or you could blame it on Obama and Andrew Sullivan.
Those were pubes? I thought it was just dirt.
Yep.
She had a pretty good point [only pretty good instead of great because Instagram is a private company facing the welter of conflicting pornography laws we all live under] till she embroidered it with victimization-speak, which may well be her only reservoir of argumentation. Geez, I hate the term "slut-shaming".
Titus wrote: Or you could blame it on Obama and Andrew Sullivan.
Sullivan would be uninterested in the photo and so might Barack Obama be.
On second thought Titus, are you feigning interest here?
"How about a photo with snot dripping out of my nose...its natural, folks!"
Hardly comparable. Female pubic hair is sexy.
OK, she shows up a contradiction - everything is allowed but now this was not allowed.
But I think you shouldn't wear a bikini (or anything else) unless you are going to look good in it. That picture looked as if it taken inside with no inside filter and that green color wasn't that good with her skin. It was like a shot in like Blade Runner - very depressing. Why shoot a depressing bikini picture of yourself? or why shoot a bikini picture of yourself and post it and then whine about men and what they say?
If they let us see one Canadian public display, then they would have to let us see all the Canadian public displays.
The pubic should be protected from this.
OK, she shows up a contradiction - everything is allowed but now this was not allowed.
She does? She shows that men can have pictures on Instagram with pubic hair sticking out of their clothes and not get banned?
That is a lot of words to talk about pubes.
The advice is too generic. The only reasonable response will be determined by a consensus of principles. Any other response would imply that there are selective or ambiguous boundaries to personal behavior, appearance, etc.
As for the unqualified "disgusted" description, the issue is likely disruptive, not aesthetic appeal.
The pubic hair defines the area shown as sexual and therefore is of itself sexual and expected to be covered by clothing by common standards. If the area is shaved, the acceptable exposure extends into a longer abdomen and longer thighs. It would still be unacceptable to show shaven genitalia uncovered by clothing. The issue is one of common standards of sexual exposure not of trying to control this woman's shaving habits.
The feminist goes fishing: You throw out a baited hook and when you get a bite you reel it in. If it's a dogfish yell shark!
Instagram can not host any photo it wants. Host it on a site that doesn't have a problem with people showing their pubes.
This is left feminist "patriarchal conspiracy theory" in action, policing other women's free choices as to what they do with their pubes. Amongst other things.
There is no repression or oppression that forces anybody to shave their junk.
There is no oppression or censorship in removing a pic from a website under a violation of the TOS. She can rent her own URL and post her hairy panty line pic's all day long and no one would care.
Feminists are really a pack of immature cry-babies quite frankly. They make a statement, someone disagrees, so they are being "oppressed!".
But, really, she is just bitching about not wanting to be held to the social conformity of the hipster crowd, which is uniformly progressive.
"Its' natural". Yea so is farting, bad breath, being eaten alive, malaria and asbestos. "Natural" doesn't always mean "preferable and desirable".
If it looks like you are smuggling Chewbacca in your underpants, it isn't attractive. Sorry ladies.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा