Public nudity and decency laws don't exist because anyone believes everyone would start walking around naked if they are struck down. If you agree that not having naked people or public sex is a good thing then you only need as little as 0.01% of the population to disagree with you to cause a problem. And no people…

See I actually have no problem with nudity. It would be just fine by me if everyone decided to galivant around naked. However the society I live in has decided it's not cool with this which sometimes happens when you decide to be a member of a commune and accept the benefits inherent. Your particular desires may not…

To have any laws at all is to expose oneself to excesses that are inherent in laws. The excesses of our sexual abuse laws for example cannot be safely disabused from the law itself without jeopardizing the intent of the law.

Would you be okay with repealing all public nudity laws ? If not then I think you have your answer to why the nipple is blurred. If you would be okay then I'd ask if you'd be okay with repealing all public indecency laws which is really the point of criminalizing nudity. If you are still okay with that then…

Wait so how were you able to avoid being brainwashed by the media and society. You want to tell me your sense of self worth is not directly related to your physical resemblance to computer generated images? GTFO

Quit making so much sense. Humans clearly have no preferences for anything. I just get to a restaurant and tell the chef "hey whatever no one has been ordering is fine with me"

Unfortunate your comment has no stars but as someone who frequently disagrees with jez commenters this is one comment I can get behind.

It depends on what properties of the objects are relevant to the discussion. In this case yes jez is like Disney with regards to the properties I am comparing them along.

Sorry you are arguing like someone deeply biased towards their own position and willing to contort the arguments in which ever way maintains your sense of self decency. This results in really desperate arguments.

Disney is no different from jez. It finds out what it's audience wants and it puts it out. They're like Vegas they don't care what team wins or loses as long as everyone places a bet. Also think about the male celebs you people here fawn over they're mostly attractive men and jez responds with appropriate content.…

Exactly. This is a website where the commentariat frequently criticizes the attractiveness requirement for actors and actresses but itself does nothing to promote the regular unattractives when it can. And at the same time does everything it can to support the mainstream for the same reasons the rest of the media…

If I only watched the part of the restaurant service where your food was served I may come to the conclusion that your meal choice is influenced by what the wait staff brings to your table. But if I roll the tape back a bit I'll see the part where you placed the order. The media is like a restaurant, they have little…

Well, a post earlier was asking Disney for an alcoholic princess I am not sure that is an indication of a marketable ground swell for princesses with a substance abuse problem. So yeah of course there is are niches for everything. The point is that only a relatively small number of people are saying they want to see…

So you guys know all of this is well explained by basic human physiology. This is not some doing of the gods or some curse your husband might have put on you.

That is my point... where is the unattractive princess? Why is attractiveness a prerequisite to princesshood.

There is a misconception that media tells us who we want to be. Nope, the media reflects who it believes we want to be. To get a more diverse set of princesses we need to begin valuing all permutations of humans more equally.

"And she's beautiful!"

"Kids can be fucking racist and discriminatory. It doesn't matter how young they are. They've learned it from their parents, relatives, and communities starting from age 3+"

"Plus" in modelling could mean something different from "plus" in general. Just like "short" or "tall" might mean different things on and away from an NBA court.

I figured something like that was going on. This is just dumb populist rhetoric. I thought Gawker was above that.