'Mythical' swan photo taken down after 'bestiality' fears

[anonymous-user]

Rude-boy said:

el stovey said:

So in summary

Swan on top of woman OK.
Golden Retriever on top of woman not OK.

Then again not many God's thought that Scooby Doo was a good physical form for them to take when going for a bit of fun with mortals.

I love greek mythology me but if Zeus wanted some romance why not appear in all his godlike finery on a cloud with lightning firing from his fingers all macho man with his deep booming voice and beard? Chicks love that stuff. No chick wants to get jiggy with a swan. Fact.

[Munter]

Greg_D said:

for god's sake i wouldn't envy any parent having to explain that to a 9 year old...

Easy. She was in the bath (hence naked) when a swan flew in the window. She jumped out the bath, slipped on the wet floor and the swan ran at her.

This is why you should always have a bath mat, so you don't slip.

[otolith]

Munter said:

I think the difference here is that the painting is possible without the event. A photo (assuming not shopped), is actually an event. She really did strike that pose, and there really was some form of "swan" between her legs.

I think the "assuming not shopped" bit is probably a stretch.

[Munter]

otolith said:

I think the "assuming not shopped" bit is probably a stretch.

Perfectly possible it's a stuffed swan. Bestiality and necrophilia?

[Rude-boy]

Greg_D said:

i fear that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think so. I can see your argument, perhaps they were ill advised to place it on such prominent display as to be visible from the outside of the gallery. That said, whilst I would not consider myself a luvvie, I love art in all its forms and in particular love that it is one of the few areas of expression that is (almost) unconstrained.

You might have found, whilst looking for that image you posted, the full animated set as I did last night. That is much closer to the bone, even if no more 'revealing', but again context is all. I can show you some breath taking nudes that I would happily hang in my home if only I could afford them, despite the fact that they really don't leave anything to the imagination. Put the same pictures in the middle of a copy of Razzle and only the beauty of the women would make you question if they were in the wrong place.

Greg_D said:

crikey, i've managed to get a 'won't you think of the children' in there as well.

You may leave your membership at the door

[0000]

Greg_D said:

and if it can be seen by someone on a passing bus........ i can understand how someone felt it contrary to common decency, for god's sake i wouldn't envy any parent having to explain that to a 9 year old...

This is a story that's been taught to children for an awfully long time without anyone having to...

Greg_D said:

crikey, i've managed to get a 'won't you think of the children' in there as well.

...oh. So you're aware there's something not quite right that you've had to resort to that line of argument, you're just not quite sure what?

[rohrl]

Moronic in the extreme. If I was the gallery owner I would definitely have filmed the encounter and kept the picture up on the wall out of principle. Who the hell does this idiot policeman think he is?

[motco]

There is another, perhaps less contentious version.

[otolith]

Munter said:

Perfectly possible it's a stuffed swan. Bestiality and necrophilia?

"Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken"?

[anonymous-user]

So basically, this classic image is one often created in art over the centuries as a way of depicting erotica without showing a man and woman actually doing it?

It's just thinly disguised titillation using the cover of depicting a Classic Greek myth?

[Zod]

el stovey said:

So basically, this classic image is one often created in art over the centuries as a way of depicting erotica without showing a man and woman actually doing it?

It's just thinly disguised titillation using the cover of depicting a Classic Greek myth?

That is precisely how the Victorians used such myths.

[Greg_D]

0000 said:

Greg_D said:

and if it can be seen by someone on a passing bus........ i can understand how someone felt it contrary to common decency, for god's sake i wouldn't envy any parent having to explain that to a 9 year old...

This is a story that's been taught to children for an awfully long time without anyone having to...

Greg_D said:

crikey, i've managed to get a 'won't you think of the children' in there as well.

...oh. So you're aware there's something not quite right that you've had to resort to that line of argument, you're just not quite sure what?

don't worry, my attempt at levity and adopting a non confrontational discussion style is clearly lost on you.

All i have left to say on this topic is that people have started amending their posts to reflect the perceived NSFW nature of the piece! that speaks volumes in my mind. If you are worried that your boss thinks you are looking at porn, then it has no place in the front window of a gallery!!!

[Greg_D]

Rude-boy said:

Greg_D said:

i fear that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think so. I can see your argument, perhaps they were ill advised to place it on such prominent display as to be visible from the outside of the gallery. That said, whilst I would not consider myself a luvvie, I love art in all its forms and in particular love that it is one of the few areas of expression that is (almost) unconstrained.

we can agree on that, i have absolutely no objection to the piece in isolation (quite the opposite in fact, she has cracking chebs ) merely that i can understand why putting it in the shop window resulted in a cease and desist order.

[JonRB]

Greg_D said:

All i have left to say on this topic is that people have started amending their posts to reflect the perceived NSFW nature of the piece! that speaks volumes in my mind. If you are worried that your boss thinks you are looking at porn, then it has no place in the front window of a gallery!!!

That's what I was trying to say when I asked you to change it to a link - I was in limited agreement with you.

I still think that the officers exceeded their authority in demanding it be taken down immediately, but I do agree that the image you posted was NSFW and as such probably shouldn't be visible from the outside of the gallery.

Incidentally, it is possible to be prosecuted for public indecency if someone looks in through the window of your house and sees you naked. (Well, if you're a bloke that is. If you're a woman and the person who sees you is a bloke then he's obviously a Peeping Tom. But I digress.)

I think, given that, it would be prudent to have this kind of art not visible by people on passing busses.

Whichever way you dice it though, this was very badly handled.

[Slyjoe]

Do swans even have cocks?
Would it be a Swan Schlong?

[Rude-boy]

otolith said:

Munter said:

Perfectly possible it's a stuffed swan. Bestiality and necrophilia?

"Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken"?

This post and the use of the phrase "cracking chebs" have been the highlight of a very frustrating day!

[Mojocvh]

motco said:

There is another, perhaps less contentious version.

I wouldn't get that close to a swan even with a 12 bore, touchy buggers them....Ar..

[motco]

Slyjoe said:

Do swans even have cocks?
Would it be a Swan Schlong?

[Gargamel]

We need a petition to allow this back.

If you start one, I will be a cygnatury.

[Gnits]

My knowledge here of the first point comes from another Ph post so beware!
1. Given that there can be no rape without some kind of insertion
2. Given also that birds have no equipment to insert merely a vent
Leads me to conclude that there was no rape.

Further, if depictions from this religion must be removed then logically can we have all the god vs Mary images (from some other religion) removed for the exactly same reason.
Also following this then the removal of most of the Abrahamic religion images as they variously depict murder, torture, rape, theft, trespass, incitement to racial hatred, copyright infringement and double parking or something.

Was anyone hurt by making this painting/sculpture? No, nobody was being mean by making it or putting in the gallery time for people to stop inflicting their views on others.

Next one who says they were offended gets 100 press-ups!