microaggression? or having the overreaction?

Fritz N. wrote:

Things that promote natural beauty/aesthetics/etshitera usually aren't printed in the format of a pinup calendar. If it were a coffeetable book, I'd cut them a bit more slack. But a wall calendar? The medium screams Hooters and used car dealerships. 

You wanna talk about acute priaprism ... my 90m Beal Joker 9.1 just came. Or maybe [insert double entendre] .

I suppose.  I didn't see that there was a calendar, although they also make dog and cat calendars so I don't think that medium is inherently pornographic. I think that the nature of the shots is what matters; do you honestly think that the composition of SN is pornographic or even pinup?  The SI Swimsuit/firefighter type things tend to have lots of artificial light, very done-up.  I'm no photographer, but the SN strike me much more as art-school.

Fritz N. wrote:

The bit about me refusing to look at evidence. I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion here, the crux of which is why the booty-shorted pic got pulled but the Stone Nudes hasn't. En route to some sort of answer, I'm running my mouth and having a good ol' time and nursing a fine Durango craft beer, all while on the clock. So, pretty good day here so far. 

Well then we're arguing over different things. I don't know why the booty shorts got pulled. I'm simply arguing SN is not porn, and is not necessarily objectifying women. 

I would trade you 100 SN calendars for a Conductor, a Modus or a Farmhouse Ale from ABC. There are certainly some things I miss about CO.

mediocre wrote:

I would trade you 100 SN calendars for a Conductor, a Modus or a Farmhouse Ale from ABC. There are certainly some things I miss about CO.

Good stuff! You can keep the calendars, but the first round is on me if you're in the area again. ;-)

Ted Pinson wrote:

I suppose.  I didn't see that there was a calendar, although they also make dog and cat calendars so I don't think that medium is inherently pornographic.

None of the dogs and cats in the calendars are wearing clothes. Definitely bestial porn ;-) 

 I think that the nature of the shots is what matters; do you honestly think that the composition of SN is pornographic or even pinup?  The SI Swimsuit/firefighter type things tend to have lots of artificial light, very done-up.  I'm no photographer, but the SN strike me much more as art-school.

Don't get me wrong, the shots in SN are well done. I'm impressed with the craftsmanship of their photography. It's just that any sort of naked-person-in-a-wall-calendar automatically carries the resonance of Sports Illustrated, etc.

It's kind of like serving a strip steak (ha, no pun intended) on a styrofoam plate. There's a disconnect between the quality of the content and the associations presented by its delivery method. 

Ted Pinson wrote:

I don't see any sound basis for that distinction.  To be honest, I would say their intentions are nearly identical, albeit with more of a niche market towards climbers.  What makes you think SN is any different from an art class nude?

Simple difference: art class nudes are intended to teach art. SN is art.

Fritz N. wrote:

What does, my skepticism? 

Well, considering that your "argument" seems to be that you can't help but get a hard-on when looking at the female form, regardless of context, you may want to look inward to resolve that problem.

ubu wrote:

Well, considering that your "argument" seems to be that you can't help but get a hard-on when looking at the female form, regardless of context, 

Pithy. Consider a career in Twitter or the Executive Branch.

you may want to look inward to resolve that problem.

;-)

I like to plaster my cubicle walls with Stone Nudes to shame less attractive co-workers. Someone has to impose standards.