...no, it doesn't.
Posted on 07/14/2009 11:49:24 PM PDT by myknowledge
"Art can never exist without naked beauty displayed," said William Blake. But the moral guardians of daytime TV take a different view. The Channel 4 programme Life Class caused conniptions last week by showing a woman sitting very still with no clothes on.
The point of the programme is to replicate a real life class, with the viewers at home encouraged to pick up a pencil. The camera stays fixed on the model from one angle, only occasionally cutting away to take a peek at what the "tutor" – one of a series of distinguished artists – has drawn.
It is filmed in a determinedly untitillating way, more Open University than Nuts magazine, and in fact the first three episodes went out last week without any kerfuffle. It was only on Thursday – when Kirsten Varley, a fashion model of uncommon loveliness, dropped her silky dressing gown and stepped on to the dais – that the forces of puritanism pricked up their ears.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
because they have no problems over there with the economy or Muslims or the EU...
Why look at your naked spouse when you can see naked people on the telly? ;^]
Please ignore the existence of this thread regardless of the level of photographic depravity which hopefully will be visited upon it.
Sincerely,
A. Webb
Nudity does us all good...especially in the bathtub. Toilet paper does us good also...want to watch?
That’s all fine and dandy, but why does it always seem that the ones getting nekkid are the same ones who really ought to have their clothes permanently attached? You know which ones I’m talking about, right? The ones who make Helen Thomas look like a hottie? Why are they always the first ones to strip off?
LOL
...no, it doesn't.
I call bravo sierra on these "studies." Walk over to the nearest high school and ask the kids how many of them would be grossed out by having their parents parade around the house in front of them naked. I would bet 90%+.
Now, did you see anything or was she just nude. Because there is a difference between being nude and naked. Like when Scarlett Johansen was in Vanity Fair. She was nude, but she didn’t show the good parts...I mean, there’s $7.50 I will never get back...
I saw nothing.
I’m merely spamming threads, looking for donations to FR!
:)
12 posts to a thread about nudity.., and not ONE pic of Helen Thomas
Many years ago, in the 70s, I was on a business trip to San Francisco. One of the attractions getting all the ‘buzz’ at the time was a bar that featured a ‘nude cocktail hour.”
In the interest of man’s right to knowledge and the free use thereof, I decided to visit.
The only difference from any of dozens of other nice trendy bars was an attractive nude model posing for an artist in a prominent corner. Every now and then the artist would decide to change the pose and would wrap the model in a covering before she would move into the next position.
Aside from the artist, the only other attempts at art by inspired patrons were the usual raunchy grafitti in the men’s room. Perhaps they did better work inthe privacy of their own bathrooms.
I got a phone number from the model. It was Dial-a-Prayer.
Was she trying to tell you that you didn't have one?
Not-A-Ping
B^)
Read my lips. No. Bad. Naked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
