Yep, this game is doomed in Australia.

Humanities love/hate relationship with female nipples goes on.

She works for the Daily Mail. They've had a thing against Rihanna for years, often due to her not wearing enough or incorrect clothing. It hasn't stopped them publishing photo after photo of her for years though.

Liz Jones is just one of the many reasons not to read the Daily Mail.

Is that female empowerment scale really a scale? At time most actions seem to be either empowering or not, with no neutrality.

I've no idea where they've got that impression. Even the Sun and lads' mags don't feature genitals.

What a crappy world we live in where surviving being raped or assaulted is considered something 'lucky.'

It's a defining feature of makes a man a man, and it increases in size during puberty. The logic goes, therefore, that a man with a large penis is more of a man than other men.

What's this 2010 study referred to called? Dines and the article refers to a study from 2010 but don't name it. Ever since the Daily Mail misinterpreted a Yougov poll, I've been a bit more wary about second hand reports of studies and so on.

Do you have link to it?

How did they calculate that? "Free porn" brings up 820,000,000 results for Google, did they go through every one? And what percentage of videos actually feature those depictions, because if I understand that quote right one video featuring a gun means that the entire website is included for that statistic?

I like the little pause the dog has at end when the cat bounds past. "Oh, no. Not again."

Never mind the franchise feeling tired, the prospect of an AC every year has the same effect on me.

Yeah. Plans were even drawn up to send its owner to an internment camp during the war.

Talking of car accidents, the Mail once denounced people who took pictures of a car accidents. If I recall correctly, within a week or so they showed uncensored pictures of a man who died when a truck full of coal accidentally dumped its load on him while he was riding his bike behind it. Imagine a pair of legs…

It's the hypocrisy that gets me. It denounces porn regularly then features images that are pornographic, except of course they don't show the all important nipples.

An additional point and question. The amount of clothing needed to make an image (sexual or non-sexual) of a woman acceptable for the general public to see has fallen a lot since photography was invented. Legs, arms, shoulders, the belly, even much of the buttocks and breasts can be seen unclothed. When did this…

In my opinion, Facebook is unfortunately reflecting the really messed up and contradictory views we have about our bodies, particularly female bodies, and sex in general as societies around the world.

That's pretty much how I see most of BSG: one man's identity crisis and his blaming of his parents for it.

A question: due to the possibility of the model being objectified, in this day and age is it necessary and right for clothing, particularly those of an erotic nature, to be modeled on real people?