NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems fairly standard fare right? I came across this (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/press_releases/is_all__time_low_promo_photo_get_girl_suspended_from_school.html) in a magazine today, and I'm really quite staggered, on three grounds;

- firstly, for a high school/secondary school, this is fairly limited as far as "explicit material" goes.
- secondly, how the fuck does that image qualify as pornographic in the first place?
- thirdly, surely suspension is a tad excessive? I do suspect, given that the source is wholly biased by nature, that the girl may have reacted to being told to remove the image, but still, surely just removing it would have sufficed?

no thats not pornographic.

whatever happened to telling her that its inappropriate and to take it down?

did they invest in the fruit of the loom company? are they hoping to make the not-so-tighty whitey a new fashion statement? a couple of the guys seem to be wearing someone else's undies.

The image was a large jpg file, so it took a while for it to load on my browser. First, I saw the heads...then the chests...the arms...the torso...and then...the underwear. Followed by some rather unattractive legs. How on earth is that suspendable material?

The image was a large jpg file, so it took a while for it to load on my browser. First, I saw the heads...then the chests...the arms...the torso...and then...the underwear. Followed by some rather unattractive legs. How on earth is that suspendable material?

You answered your own question. Even before you asked it. :p

Meh, go figure. Human stupidity knows no-bounds.

Man those boys need to find a barber, badly.

Followed by a tailor.

That photo isn't pornographic. It's just very unnattractive!

Tasteful? Not really...

Pornographic, not by a long shot.

Seems fairly standard fare right? I came across this (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/press_releases/is_all__time_low_promo_photo_get_girl_suspended_from_school.html) in a magazine today, and I'm really quite staggered, on three grounds;

- firstly, for a high school/secondary school, this is fairly limited as far as "explicit material" goes.
- secondly, how the fuck does that image qualify as pornographic in the first place?
- thirdly, surely suspension is a tad excessive? I do suspect, given that the source is wholly biased by nature, that the girl may have reacted to being told to remove the image, but still, surely just removing it would have sufficed?

I'd like to see said photo before making any judgements.

I'd like to see said photo before making any judgements.

click on the link in the op then there is a link on that article to the pic.

and no, not porn IMHO.

and I though my legs were hairy...

I'd like to see said photo before making any judgements.

There is a link to it in the article.

Reason #45,335,567 to keep your child out of the public schools.

Man those boys need to find a barber, badly.

Followed by a tailor.

The latter, yes.

But you can't mess with their 'fros. All Time Low are awesome.:)

:rolleyes: is all I can manage. That's just ridiculous!

There is a link to it in the article.

Ugh. That's definitely not porn. They could have just told her to take it down, though. Jeez.

Hideous? Yes.

Pornographic? No.

I'd suspend her for subjecting her fellow students to that sort of horror and emo ugliness.

Followed by some rather unattractive legs. How on earth is that suspendable material?
Just by the legs, I am pretty sure the guy on the far right is a man-bear-pig.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/ManBearPig_Sketch.jpg

That photo isn't pornographic. It's just very unnattractive!

Agreed, that's the photo of a group of guys who should never be naked or anywhere near naked.

click on the link in the op then there is a link on that article to the pic.

and no, not porn IMHO.

and I though my legs were hairy...

No Opinion about it. Pornography is sex without artistic merit. In many cases it's subjective what counts as artistic merit, but it's quite clear there's no sex in that photo, so the issue of artistic merit is irrelevant. Just some guys in their underwear. Whether or not that turns you on has nothing to do with whether or not it's porn. It's not porn unless the subject is performing a sex act. Posing is not a sex act.

Am I the only one who thinks the suspension story is just made up? Looks like a nice bit of advertising for the band to me

*looks at picture*
*shudders*
*screams*
dear sweet jesus !!!!!...

not porn but totally inappropriate...ANYWHERE

that band is truly sad and pathetic...let me guess some emo/screamo band.

If i had been the principal I'd have suspended her for bad taste.

The latter, yes.

But you can't mess with their 'fros. All Time Low are awesome.:)

Ugh, is that what they call that? Makes me want to club 'em and shave 'em.

Has no-one else noticed just how dreadfully written the article was?
And how blatant the plug for the band was in the article.
Also, no link and no verification as to the 'it's porn' story.

I think (if it is true) that the principal took the pic down because it was deeply offensive to anyone with aesthetic principles and not because it was porn.

Has no-one else noticed just how dreadfully written the article was?
And how blatant the plug for the band was in the article.
Also, no link and no verification as to the 'it's porn' story.

I think (if it is true) that the principal took the pic down because it was deeply offensive to anyone with aesthetic principles and not because it was porn.

Honestly I only skimmed the article and really didn't care which band it was.

It shows nipples. I am led to be believe that bare nipples is pornographic... wait isn't that just on females... *wonders what the difference is between female and male nipples*

First of all, they're so young - hardly provocative at all by my elderly standards.
Second, they're wearing tighty whiteys - which, even if they were attractive (again, by my elderly standards), would destroy the image completely
Third, they need pedicures - badly.

If they were offended by the picture, they should have just asked her to hang inside the locker or carry it in her binder. It's hardly a suspension offense.

It's good that she's suspended...




...for having a bad taste!

It's weird how two of the four have a rather prominent double chin that cries: "lyposuction!!"

How old are they, obviously not in their mid 50s, so how come?

It's weird how two of the four have a rather prominent double chin that cries: "lyposuction!!"

How old are they, obviously not in their mid 50s, so how come?

They do seem rather scrawny yet quite fat in places. Baby fat perhaps, guessing none of them are over 20.