4-11-08

Day 609 of 365 More.

I am Flickr’s most favorite user! Who wants to touch me? <CARTMAN>I said, WHO WANTS TO TOUCH ME!?! </CARTMAN>

So yeah, I spent some time today (time I don’t really have, of course) dealing with the flickr group moderation issue. Amazingly, the powers that be seem to have realized that maybe they overstepped things a little bit and they have promised to look into making things a little more fair for the userbase.

It’s pretty much not in my nature to trust anyone about anything, but believe it or not I am actually optimistic for once. It doesn’t happen often, let’s hope its not misplaced.

Some people have asked me why I care so much and I can boil it down for you. As I said a couple days ago I am very protective of 365. Hell, I even said, if for some reason it ever came to be that I was moderated to where I couldn’t post I’d delete it rather than turn it over to someone else. I dunno. It would just be too weird having anyone else in charge of it.

Anyway, the reason I care is pretty simple. There are a lot fo flickr users that I follow here. Many are very gifted photographers. I don’t comment as often as I should (in fact, I’m behind on answering my own comments again), but there are a lot of streams that I look at every day, and that’s the thing. I was thinking earlier today that it’s all about two of my favorite 365ers, Sarah and Clarissa.

Sarah is probably the longest running 365er next to myself. I think she started the project like 3 days later and has grown more that any photographer I’ve ever seen in that time. I’ve always found her interesting because she spoke early on about having self-esteem and body image issues and today, some 600 days later, she posts absolutely stunning nudes almost every other day. She’s got a brilliant eye for composition and tone and is simply amazing. Clarissa on the other hand is Stephen’s daughter, and I’m pretty sure that year for year (which is sort of like pound for pound) she’s the most talented person walking the planet today. She’s an actress, a singer and an amazing photographer, all at the age of 13.

Since Clarissa isn’t of age, by the letter of the law she should not be able to join a flickr group where nudes can be posted, even though, since Sarah is very good about restricting access to those nudes, Clarissa can’t see them anyway.

Three days ago, Flickr essentially told me that I had to choose. Given the group settings as they now exist I have to either find some way to force Sarah to change her entire style of photograpy, find some way to age Clarissa five years overnight, or choose one to stay in the group and the other to leave.

I refuse to make that choice.

The entire premise of 365 is that it is an expression of the self and your daily life. It is a chance to creatively relay your life story, be you a 30-something mother or a teenaged girl. Both of them are not only excellent photographers, but both have faithfully and consistently obeyed every rule of the group that I set out and every rule of the communtiy that flickr set out.

I refuse to choose between them.

And I don’t think I should have to.

I took a break from work this afternoon and a coworker and I went to the local drug store. When I was was checking out, I noticed the cover of this year’s Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Marissa Miller (the model) is standing there in nothing but bikini bottoms, hair and a beaded necklace covering her breasts. This was sitting in plain reach right above the candy, about 2 feet off the ground. I immediately thought to myself “oh no, think of the children!”

And then, this made me think. “So how valid a statement is that, anyway?” It’s been thrown around here on flickr quite a lot. But what does it really mean? How prudish is this country anyway?

So I spent the evening gathering up magazines. About $100 worth. Anything with a sexy, scantily clad woman on the cover, and yet still easily in the reach of children. Here is what I discovered.

People worry about entirely too much shit on the internet!

It turns out that if you go to a supermarket, your kid sees way more skin than anything available in my stream under “safe” After my big struggle with the moderation nazis yesteryear, I started marking even my implied nudes as “moderate.” Because you know, think of the children. You know, the same children who can buy this month’s GQ off the stand at Target, complete with Adriana Lima on the cover, naked but for a crotch level palm frawn. And by crotch level, I mean it covers just enough that I can’t tell you for sure whether she has a vagina or not, but I can tell you that if she does, she certainly doesn’t have any hair on it.

Ummm, that is apparently “safe.”

In fact, all these covers are apparently “safe” for kids, as not one magazine that I picked up, did I have to ask someone behind a counter for, or anything like that. I will note that the Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler magazines I got did come in sealed plastic bags, to keep the eyes of the kiddies from from experiencing the “moderate or restricted” pictures inside. But the covers of all three were in full view. I will note that Penthouse, has a girl in a bikini on it, but the bikini is much more practical than the one on the cover of SI, and actually a lot more modest than most of the other covers i picked up. I will also point out that the Playboy Natural Beauties newstand special, had a big censored bar going across the chest of the model on the sealed plastic bag to make it “safe” but once I opened the bag I found that she is also draping her hair over her breasts, and doing a much better job at concealing herself than the covers of SI or GQ. She’s also wearing panties, albeit, obviously small ones, but she is covering her crotch with her hands as well, and again, doing a better job than GQ’s Ms Lima. Not only is anatomical proof of her gender hidden from me, but I am not immediately able to ascertain her grooming habits.

Esquire has a naked Jessica Simpson on the cover this month (cropped just tight enough that her nipples fall off the bottom of the page). Madonna chose to wear clothing on the cover of this month’s Vanity Fair. Granted, she’s wearing bondage gear. But, uh, it’s clothing. And it makes sense, you know, because it’s their annual “Green Issue” and what says “Save the planet!” more than BDSM with Madonna? Ok, maybe BDSM with Al Gore, but I for one am happy they made the decision they did.

In fact, I’m fairly confident saying that most innocuous and “safe” cover of any magazine I bought was Hustler, which is CLEARLY a porno mag. It’s cover features an attractive woman in a short skirt, bra top, and a sweater. Obviously pushing the envelope here, but I’m pretty sure she could wear that walking through the streets of Pittsburgh, and while she’d get quite a few looks, turn a few heads, maybe cause marital arguments between men and their wives, she wouldn’t get arrested. Kristen Bell, is on the cover of this month’s Cosmo, and while her outfit covers slightly more than Meggan, the Hustler model, (and yes, I mean, slighly, her neckline is cut way lower than most women would be comfortable leaving the home), every headline on the cover of Cosmo is about Sex. Usually most of them are. But this month happens to be “The Sexy Issue” featuring “Our Naughtiest Sex Q&A”, “Feel Great Naked”, “67 New Sex Tricks”, “When your Boobs Act Weird”, and “The Sexiest Things to Do After Sex!” Now I’ll grant the interior content may be a little different, but if you didn’t know anything about either magazine, which would you rather your under 18, child was reading, the magazine with those headlines or the Magazine that featured “Muscle Babes: Buff and Beautiful” but also articles entitled “Air America’s Nosedive, an Analysis”, “Alabama’s Political Prisoner” an interview with Depeche Mode’s Dave Gahan, and “Thom Hartmann on GOP Double Speak” and finally an interview with 80s rock sensations, the Bangles. Yeah, I’m thinking I’d probably choose the Hustler. Oops. But hell, if you didn’t know, they almost make it seem like a politcial commentary mag. And actually, if you know anything about Hustler, it is. It’s just that it’s a political commentary mag that has pictures of graphic sex. Sometimes I think Larry Flynt is a genius.

Really, the one that I find most offensive the Sports Illustarted. Come on people. That’s a naked woman there. In fact if you look at it for more than 5 seconds, you’ll see that unlike GQ or Playboy Special they did a poor job covering her boobs with her hair and the necklace, so they’ve AIRBRUSHED OUT HER NIPPLES to make it it supermarket-safe. Ugh! I swear that’s the most disturbing thing ever. I am so much more offended and well creeped out by seeing a woman on the cover of a magazine with her nipple removed than I ever would be by actually seeing them. I mean, what is that?!?! There should be a nipple here. My world is falling apart.

So umm, yeah. There’s your community standards of the country for you. Right on display. Not one magazine you are looking at in this picture was even out of the reach of children. Wow… I just decided my photostream is downright puritanical. I really feel like I need to fix that now. Hey girls who has long hair and hands and wants to take some pictures?

365 days