--- Jack Lutz <jack-lutz(a)comcast.net> wrote: The image in question is a cartoon of a little girl with her bare bottom exposed. That's all, just her bare bottom. I don't know about Florida, but commercials for baby products in California *very* often show the bare bottoms of very young children (real ones, not cartoons). -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

I wonder what these overly-sensitive people would have done a few decades ago when one could see the classic Coppertone ad on a billboard, right out in public and all. For those whose childhood didn't include this iconic image: Coppertone was a sunscreen product, the advertisements for which showed a drawing of a very young (under 10 years old) girl whose swimsuit bottom (as I recall, she wore nothing on top) was being pulled down by a cocker spaniel to reveal the contrast between her well-tanned back and very pale bottom. -- Sean Barrett | It's a very sobering feeling to be up in sean(a)epoptic.com | space and realise that one's safety factor | was determined by the lowest bidder on | a government contract. --Alan Shepherd

No, I must confess that I missed that detail in my cursory glance at the [[Lolicon]] image. -- Sean Barrett | It's a very sobering feeling to be up in sean(a)epoptic.com | space and realise that one's safety factor | was determined by the lowest bidder on | a government contract. --Alan Shepherd

Tony Sidaway wrote: I have no problem with the illustration. It is a reasonable balance between good taste and a fair representation of what the topic is about. The simple fact that many would not notice the dildo without being told about it says a lot about the care that went into choosing the image. I'm sure that the contributor could have found far more objectionable drawings if he had so wanted. Ec

Jimbo said: Yes, I suppose that's what I meant. So, to the question: is an eroticized drawing of a child abuse victim suitable for Wikipedia?

Rich Holton said: Well that's apparently what Lolicon is about--child porn manga and anime.

Rich Holton said: No problem. Sometimes I don't express my point as well as I should. What's hitting me on the funny bone is that I don't see the same people who are asking for the Autofellatio picture to be justified making the same point about the Lolicon picture. On the face of it, most of the reasons advanced for getting rid of the autofellatio picture, or at least making it a link, seem to hold up for Lolicon--if not even stronger. But the chap in the autofellatio picture is clearly an adult having a whole heap of fun. The girl in the Lolicon picture is submitting to child abuse, and the presentation is, or is intended to be, erotic. Perhaps the fact that the latter picture is an anime drawing is the reason why it seems to fly under so many radars.

Tony Sidaway wrote: Sometimes it's better to just let your opponent in a debate make your point for you. You're doing a beautiful job making my point for me.

Tony Sidaway wrote: Yeah, it relies on you not realizing you're doing it.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:14:26PM -0000, Tony Sidaway wrote: One obvious distinction is that one is a photograph, being cited as evidence that a certain act is possible. The other is a drawing, serving as an example of a genre of drawing. (And it's not really clear to me that the model in the photograph is having a whole heap of fun. He's a porn actor; he's paid to do that, whether he gets a nasty crick in his back from it or not. Plus he looks as if he's about to burst a blood vessel either in his forehead or his ... somewhere else.) -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>