Fair enough, there's some swearing. I was looking for nudity!
*nsfw

Your video, Kevin Bacon Complains About the Lack Of Male Onscreen Nudity, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Wow, its beginning was like a horror scene compared to the English version. It's different for sure. Old man and young Odi were in it too. There are definitely nudity and violence too.

I have too many stuff to watch, so I think I will put Real Humans series on hold and then watch the rest after it gets a new season. I don't want to get confused with both of their plots.

Also, each epiosde is almost an hour long compared to AMC's 42ish minutes.

Who else is watch(ed/ing) (Real) Humans? Just @dag and me?

I wonder if Siftbot is a hubot too. Oh, I want a hubot too!

*dead -- "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on nudity or sexual content..."

*dead -- "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on nudity or sexual content..." I don't remember any of that!

thanks for all your support brother.
you see the photo album i posted on facebook?
mild nudity but on a side note:thats my ex fiance'

The psycho ex bit mirrors very closely an old video and meme of a slightly... obsessive girl who made a nude video of herself where she talks crazy to the camera. this was passed around the internet and set to, for example, the theme from Requiem for a Dream, to illustrate her creepy crazy. Not a great thing to admit to watching, what with the possible mental disturbance and the public mocking of private nudity and all... But it got much worse when it turned out that she was apparently in eighth grade when she made the video. Extra ew, then.

To be fair about being fair there are a lot of assumptions in your post. One they did not arrest him on the spot. That leaves a little dignity for the World War 2 veteran. Although the State picking it up at all is a douche move. Two, he probably will not go to jail at all. They say "Up to 60 days" which really means "We just like to give round numbers that won't ever fucking happen because it's sensational."

You could in theory be sentenced to a year in county time for trespassing, but that will not happen the first 40 times or so. (I have seen people sentenced to that much time. And by people I mean "person".)

Off that subject, if law officers obsessed over every immoral law out there then in no world system would there be any law. The laws against crack rock? Extremely, blatantly racist. Pot laws? I think a bit immoral. Laws against effective protest measures, gay marriage, fuck, even public nudity. All these laws are someone else's bullshit of how things ought to be.

The next problem is that of cause and effect. We have banned child molesters from most of the city areas in an attempt to get them away from "our" children. The side effect is that we really haven't solved the issue. The chronically homeless (Not to be confused with the majority of homeless who actually get out of being homeless) are mentally ill and or on drugs. Although not particularly dangerous or volatile, this is Florida, and even our homeless are more dangerous than other parts of the county.

Lastly, there are no moral jobs out there. If you work for a hospital, business, restaurant, power company, phone company, agricultural etc you are working for an evil, evil place. This is America--money keeps us running. And the homeless have no money.

minorly *nsfw due to some nudity.

This didn't really work for me. The Moonlight Sonata just didn't mesh with Hotel California, and the imagery just felt like a random early 90s video by Marilyn Manson or Nirvana or . Not that those videos are bad, it's just been done before.

I say if a person sees a naked image of a pre-pubescent and thinks it's sexual, that person has a problem they need to do serious private work on and thinking about. Attaching their sexual issues to non-sexual objects/images is simply deflection of responsibility for their own sickness. There's no problem with the innocent image at all. Non-sexual child nudity in art is not a new, troubling, or odd thing. Sexualizing it is.

As a father of a young child and also a professional photographer, this is really close to my heart.

I really hate that people associate nudity with sexuality. Of course nudity can be sexual, but that's not the same as saying all nudity is sexual. Running around with nothing on is just something kids do. They aren't body aware and at that age they shouldn't be.

If we're going to make something illegal or think of it as wrong because some weirdo finds it sexual, well where the hell does that end? A lot of people have a foot fetish, so are we all to keep our socks on at all times? Really?

The photo of the little girl jumping on the bed is a great shot. It shows the carefree abandon of a little kid trying to amuse herself. To me it speaks to my inner child and makes me realise how much we've lost as adults. The nudity is important in this shot, but not for any sexual reason. When was the last time you just didn't care? When was the last time you thought it could be OK to jump on the bed naked? More to the point when was the last time that you didn't even have to think that and just did it, just because?

It makes the shot interesting that her naked body is not sexual. It's the opposite. It's innocent, there's nothing more to it. She's not at an age where all of these rules and restrictions should apply to her because they are meaningless to a toddler.

The problem comes when people take innocent shots like this and try to make out that they are sexual. That's when the damage happens. That's when the little girl is sexualised. Not by the photographer, but by the people who claim to be trying to protect the kids.

**Undesirable** nudity, I love that.

What percentage was desirable?

I don't have the right not to be offended? lol

Good god, everyone today is offended. People are offended because a football team is called the 'Redskins'.

People are offended because others don't believe in global warming.

People are offended by Duck Dynasty.

People are offended by Chik-fil-ay

People are offended by anything regarding Christianity.

People are offended by gun laws.

People are offended by nudity.

People are offended by violence.

People are offended by cigarette smokers.

You are obviously offended by me and my preferences.

etc etc etc etc etc

If that is your argument, I just blew it out of the water.

Also, why are my preferences 'wrong' or 'narrow'?

Also, I don't look or search google for homosexual images or apologias or anything else of that nature. I prefer searching google for nude babes.
I can judge just as well as you judge me.
What happened to that old adage 'everyone has their own opinion'?

Perhaps you have too much Chaos in your life and could use a little order.

*dead

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on nudity and sexual content