Porn site with BM all over it

All things outside of Burning Man.
beachburner
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:21 pm

Post by beachburner » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:59 am

Blonde Iguana - to quote from Brother John's post above:

"This is Brother John on the BM Media Team. Thanks so much for posting this. To answer a few of your questions: if you find something that leaves you concerned or scratching your head, shoot us an e-mail:

press <at> burningman <dot> com"


Shoot them an email with the links. They're very good at taking this stuff down. In a large way, it's up to us to help police this stuff.

brotherjohn
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Thanks for the links, Blonde Iguana

Post by brotherjohn » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:31 pm

We're now reviewing both of these sites. I'm glad you posted them.

And yes, we really rely on the community to help us with this stuff. It's far too big a job for a few volunteers to monitor the Internet.

:shock:

...but we can usually act on what we find and what we're sent.

User avatar
Fat SAM
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:46 am
Location: PDX
Contact:

Post by Fat SAM » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:32 pm

That troutbrook one isn't inappropriate at all, I'd say. There are a mess of other pictures at the same web site and they all appear to be fairly benign.

OH! And....the reason I was going to post to this thread again, anyway, was that I wanted to know if anyone knew what the London Underground incident that BJ mentioned was.
Thanks to Addis, I had more free time.

brotherjohn
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Troutbrook / UK

Post by brotherjohn » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:08 am

Unfortunately I can't find the pictures of the UK ad. I believe it was a Pepsi advert featuring somebody on the playa in costume, with a theme along the lines of "Think Different".

User avatar
ZaphodBurner
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:05 pm
Burning Since: 2004
Camp Name: The Green Hour 2012 - 9:00 & D
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by ZaphodBurner » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:23 am

Isotopia wrote:
If folks are so ashamed of going to Burning Man that they don't want to be filmed, they shouldn't go. Or, wear a costume.
Feeling sick.....to....stomach.

C'mon dude. Don't defualt back to lame sloganeering. Seriously.
Naw, I'm not defaulting to sloganeering. I'm serious. People take pictures of people at Burning Man. The issue is not art or freedom or expression, it's shame. If you're ashamed of being in a photo, either deal with your shame or avoid the lens. But if you go to Burning Man and ride around topless on a bike with thousands of other people who are waving at the cameras as they pass, you're gonna get photographed. That is simply reality. There should be NO shame in women being topless.

Wear a fucking costume if you don't like it, or don't participate. (But where's the glory in the latter?)

WRT to Cocozella, that site is commercially voyeuristic and specifically exists to display pictures of topless women in public. Mardi Gras, Spring Break, Lake Havasu, Sturgis, the strippers-in-indiana thing, and now apparently Burning Man? That site is about the commercialization of public nudity by young females. The "free" shots are stuff they spam to newsgroups and other sources for the purpose of promoting their website.

If the org doesn't stay on that ball, Cocozella *will be* soliciting and then charging viewers for photos of topless or nude young, attractive girls at Burning Man and any other sexual content somebody wants to forward them.

-c
"The Red Baron is smart.. He never spends the whole night dancing and drinking root beer.. "-The WWI Flying Ace

MsEASY
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: denver

Post by MsEASY » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:13 pm

it is presumptuous to speak as if women are ashamed of themselves when they wish to have one sacred place in the world where they can feel the unrestricted freedom of nudity without being photographed & ogled. i am very comfortable with my body & nudity but i dont want nude photos of myself being circulated on the web either. so basically your telling all of the women that attend bman to either cover up ( which is them being ashamed ) or deal with the fact that the whole world may have the chance to see them nude? what ppl are saying here is that women shouldnt have to fear this possibility when they are at burningman. why does there have to be a consequence if we wish to have the same freedom men easily have? is it "our" fault & not the fault of the oglers? is it not a lack of respect on the other parties part & not of our own? this possibility of misuse is making women who are very unashamed of themselves inhibited. we may wish to be nude, but that doesnt mean we wish to become centerfolds.

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:59 pm

MsEASY wrote:what ppl are saying here is that women shouldnt have to fear this possibility when they are at burningman. why does there have to be a consequence if we wish to have the same freedom men easily have?
Huh?

A) I can't walk around naked.
B) When I did at Burning Man, I had just as much chance of being photographed or ogled.

You aren't talking about an equal right, you are talking about a 'more equal' right simply because you are a woman. Ie. you have the right to have no one look at you or photograph you- yet a man would not need this right. I call bullshit. I go to a nudist beach quite faithfully, so I like nudity for the sake of having no clothes. But I'm a realist enough to know that Burning Man is NOT an uber-safe nudist resort.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

User avatar
Isotopia
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:26 am

Post by Isotopia » Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:32 pm

I second that motion. I call bullshit.

Steven bradford
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 11:29 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Steven bradford » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:13 am

" so basically your telling all of the women that attend bman to either cover up ( which is them being ashamed ) or deal with the fact that the whole world may have the chance to see them nude? "

Yes.

See photo of me, left, pulled from the net, which I didn't even know about till a few years after it was taken. It's still up too, in the image gallery.
Steve

Paint or Be Painted
http://www.seanet.com/~bradford/Body_Painting_Technique.html

brotherjohn
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

there's an opportunity to look at this in other ways

Post by brotherjohn » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:09 am

MsEASY wrote:it is presumptuous to speak as if women are ashamed of themselves when they wish to have one sacred place in the world where they can feel the unrestricted freedom of nudity without being photographed & ogled...we may wish to be nude, but that doesnt mean we wish to become centerfolds.
Preface: I'm not speaking as a mouthpiece of the org. I'm just throwing in my personal take.

I can understand why you wish for this. I can't imagine how much it would suck to feel oogled everywhere.

But BMan is never going to be this place, in my opinion. The organizers don't encourage nudity, and they don't claim to have the resources to police cameras at the event or the use of the photos after the event is over. And as a photographer, I would really be upset if I couldn't take pictures because cameras were banned in order to make naked folks feel more safe.

More complicated is the question of intent. Did the guy with the camera take your picture because he thought you were beautiful and that the resulting image was moving enough to share? Or was he a pornographer who wanted to sell your image on his site when he got home? If you've seen the naturalist sites on the net, you'll know that some of them look like a flimsy excuse to show naked people, while others look like family photos of a community outing. You may see oogling, but is that what the watcher is experiencing?

Perhaps I'm the most confused about the indignation over cameras at Critical Tits. Many men think that half-naked costumed women riding bicycles is absolutely captivating. It's not at all surprising that they want to savor this image. The intent is clearly a very public display of nudity, or as public as riding topless through a city of 40,000 people can be. I understand that it *feels* different because it's inside the freeing context of Black Rock City. But honestly--isn't this a kind of shared fiction that we all enjoy believing because it's liberating?

This is mostly a self-organizing community. If there are people on (or off) the playa who are acting inappropriately, we all have to find a way to deal with it and/or address it. The work done by the org to pursue inappropriate use of photos is a backup--it's not a guarantee or a right.

Again, it's an understandable wish on your part, but Burning Man--a city of 40k people--cannot be the sanctuary you hope for.

User avatar
ZaphodBurner
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:05 pm
Burning Since: 2004
Camp Name: The Green Hour 2012 - 9:00 & D
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by ZaphodBurner » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:19 am

MsEASY wrote:it is presumptuous to speak as if women are ashamed of themselves when they wish to have one sacred place in the world where they can feel the unrestricted freedom of nudity without being photographed & ogled.
My wife runs around the house naked all the time. Pretty sacred.
what ppl are saying here is that women shouldnt have to fear this possibility when they are at burningman.
There's a lot of things people shouldn't have to fear, like cancer or that their kid might get hit by a car. But there's reality. Photography is a form of art, and art is allowed at Burning Man, and there will always be photography at Burning Man. If somebody wants to organize a no-photography CT ride, go for it. Meanwhile, there are hundreds or thousands of equal participants in the ride who don't mind or who WANT to be photographed.

By the way, a...uh...Burner I know hacked the Coccozella site. There are photos from this year's Burning Man there but whereas the other categories are "Mardi Gras," "Sturgis," "Nudes-a-Poppin" (must be what passes for culture in Indiana?), the BM galleries are called "Desert Festival" and there is no mention of BM at all even though you can see the eye at the top of the funhouse under the man. For whatever that's worth...

-zb
"The Red Baron is smart.. He never spends the whole night dancing and drinking root beer.. "-The WWI Flying Ace

ThePikey
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:41 pm
Contact:

Post by ThePikey » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:59 pm

Rob the Wop wrote:
MsEASY wrote:what ppl are saying here is that women shouldnt have to fear this possibility when they are at burningman. why does there have to be a consequence if we wish to have the same freedom men easily have?
Huh?

A) I can't walk around naked.
B) When I did at Burning Man, I had just as much chance of being photographed or ogled.

You aren't talking about an equal right, you are talking about a 'more equal' right simply because you are a woman. Ie. you have the right to have no one look at you or photograph you- yet a man would not need this right. I call bullshit. I go to a nudist beach quite faithfully, so I like nudity for the sake of having no clothes. But I'm a realist enough to know that Burning Man is NOT an uber-safe nudist resort.
Ah. But as a male, you can walk around in public without a shirt. And unless you're particularly obese or hairy or otherwise 'unaesthetic' (as modern society defines that) nobody is going to tell you you can't do that (except the occasional odd restaraunt 'no shirt no shoes no service'). Much less snap pictures of you and post them on the web and charge horny bastards money for the privilage of downloading your image as a mastubatory aid.

What MsEasy wants is that same ability, to go without a shirt, and not be made to feel shameful or accused of being prurient, dirty, and unwholesome. She's not asking for 'extra rights' that you don't have, she's trying to remove a double standard, if only for one week.

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:43 am

ThePikey wrote: Ah. But as a male, you can walk around in public without a shirt.
<snip>
What MsEasy wants is that same ability, to go without a shirt, and not be made to feel shameful or accused of being prurient, dirty, and unwholesome. She's not asking for 'extra rights' that you don't have, she's trying to remove a double standard, if only for one week.
Then I demand the right to bear children.

Oh wait, that's silly. Men and women are built differently.

So wait, let's think about this then. Men have 4 'illegal bits' that can't be shown in public, three in front and one in back. They just happen to be all around in the same area.

Women have 4 'illegal bits' that can't be shown in public. Two up top and two below.

So the equilivant in today's society would be allowing men to show just their testicles if women show just their breasts. Hey I'm all for it, but a cultural double standard is still being applied if women can flash their bits and men can't.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

User avatar
geekster
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
Contact:

Post by geekster » Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:19 am

Actually, in a growing number of jurisdictions women may in fact go topless anywhere they please in public. Anywhere that a man may appear without a shirt, so may a woman. There was a case recently that was in the news (I will see if I can locate it, a quick google didn't turn it up) where a woman was cited for being topless in public and the city was forced to drop the issue.

Breasts are a big deal *because* we cover them up, not because we show them. If men were used to seeing a woman's chest from the time they were tots, it wouldn't be such a novelty. Sure, there are some very nice examples of a woman's anatomy out there just as there are nice examples of almost anything else in nature but if the girls got a little more exposure (no wait, a lot more) then it wouldn't be such a big damned deal to oogle over breasts just because they are breasts.

If we took away the "forbidden" part of it, "nice tits!" would mean something more akin to "nice legs!" rather than "I am acknowledging that you have chosen to expose your tits and given me a chance to see something I am generally not supposed to". It might also take away some of the problems some men have with thinking that just because the girls are exposed, that the owner of said tits wants them touched, fondled, etc. If you see a stranger with a nice pair of legs downtown, do you normally ask to touch and massage them? I would think not. But if it was taboo for a woman to show her legs you might. You might be thinking that the showing of the legs is an invitation.

I say set those tits free. The sooner we get over it, the better.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.

can't sit still
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Post by can't sit still » Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:57 am

I agree with Geekster, but magnetisn is magnetism. Could you imagine trying to drive in city traffic if all the women, beautiful or otherwise were topless. I find it hard to imagine the day when I would be completely blase about such a sight :D :D .
Dan
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:02 am

Which is why I specifically said cultural double standard.

Many cultures have no problem with nudity.
Some even have no problem with public sex.

Nevada was problems with public flesh re: the naughty bits I refered to.

I have no problem with public nudity and I am not the 'just to see a thrill' type. I spend quite a bit of my summers at a nude beach near me.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

User avatar
telizas
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 7:39 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by telizas » Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:41 pm

I would love to see bare breasts be the norm. Breasts are, first and foremost, te best way to feed a child. I am SICK of women having to justify feeing their child in public because our society wants to label them as sexual objects.

Women have to stop objectifying *themselves* first, by not being afraid to show their bodies - perfect or not. For (how long?) women were not allowed to wear pants, as it was "not appropriate" - because men said so. We can't let men alone dictate what is and is not sexual. So poeple want to take a pic of your bare breasts and get off on it? Well, then they are the sick fuck who's coming to a pic of lactating breasts, and thats not my fault. Less controversial, men are aften the ones seeking to alienate nursing mothers and their babies and want them put away in a closet: Do these men also eat their lunches in a bathroom? Just because *they* find breasts sexually arousing doesn't mean I should have to feed my child elsewhere. (Anthropologically and psychologically speaking, men are attracted to breasts BECAUSE breasts are an indicator of a woman's ability to bear and nurture children!)

Women - quit giving men the satisfaction of making you hide and your breasts be this taboo thing! When *we* do that, the respect breasts deserve will follow.
Well behaved women rarely make history.

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:36 pm

telizas wrote:because men said so. We can't let men alone dictate what is and is not sexual.

men are aften the ones seeking to alienate nursing mothers and their babies and want them put away in a closet: Do these men also eat their lunches in a bathroom? Just because *they* find breasts sexually arousing doesn't mean I should have to feed my child elsewhere. (Anthropologically and psychologically speaking, men are attracted to breasts BECAUSE breasts are an indicator of a woman's ability to bear and nurture children!)

Women - quit giving men the satisfaction of making you hide and your breasts be this taboo thing! When *we* do that, the respect breasts deserve will follow.
Amen. And while we're at it- there is a higher per capita crime rate among young black males. So blacks are criminals!

Oh wait. I'm making a fucked up stereotype based on the actions of a small section of a population sample. Hmmmmm. Maybe there's some kind of lesson hidden here.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Badger » Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:19 pm

I spend quite a bit of my summers at a nude beach near me.
Godless perv.
Desert dogs drink deep.

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:04 pm

Badger wrote:
I spend quite a bit of my summers at a nude beach near me.
Godless perv.
Jesus loves me,
this I know,
Cause I'm his little fucking ho.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:41 pm

...cigar smokin pirate ass?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”