Comments on: Geisha Bondage Ad Banned for “Submissive Pose”

By: Daiyousei

Daiyousei — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:36:36 +0000

*implies you'll also be there*

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:44:50 +0000

Of course the other way around it'd probably be called a positive empowering example for women.

By: hALOTOO

hALOTOO — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:23:06 +0000

Touche

By: Soljashy

Soljashy — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:13:27 +0000

イェスマイロルド

This actually says "Yes my lol'd."

Use ロード for "lord".

By: Shuu

Shuu — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:11:44 +0000

AMIRITE usually implies sarcasm, so no worries. And I honestly can't imagine that a person who would think such bullshit would possibly be able to find this site even by accident...

By: Strawberry Suicide

Strawberry Suicide — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:57:27 +0000

I hope that was meant sarcastic...> >

I like wrist bondage, because it's SEXY...:P Especially with a tie^^

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:34:33 +0000

This is not art. This is a magazine ad. Banning ads is different and does not mean the exact same image would be banned from an art gallery, or even from a coffee-table book sold in a major bookstore. Advertising, by its nature, is "pushed" onto the viewer. No one wants to view an ad. Ads are forced into the public's eye on conspicuous billboards. Ads are inserted into television programs - one minute you're watching the program you choose to watch, the next minute you are watching an ad that you didn't choose. Ads are hidden in magazine - you flip the page no knowing whether you'll see an article or an ad. You can choose to buy a bondage magazine, or you can choose to never buy a bondage magazine. The problem with the ad is, bondage is being pushed onto people who did not choose to see it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 06:47:58 +0000

fuck that they should focus on this crap and leave our 2d alone!

By: MechaTama31

MechaTama31 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 05:30:46 +0000

Of course it implies violence, because nobody ever does bondage willingly. What kind of freak would do that, AMIRITE?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:59:12 +0000

fuck censorship

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:57:31 +0000

Okay, we are doomed...

If this harmless piece of actual art faces ban, then what understanding/tolerance are we, otaku are waiting for?!

Dunno what feminazi stated she looks upset but that expression looks rather 'plastic'( meaning that it doesn't even look like she expressing any natural emotion...)

Plus she is no sexual turn-on at all...

Those bitches should go and have a date with their therapists 'cause seeing anything wrong into this picture IS fu*ed up compared to being a 2D lolicon or a hentai fan!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:32:18 +0000

Haha that too, though what I meant was in recent years. There were little to no peep of complaints until that whole fiasco. Once it was announced that the DPA was in act, the pro-censorship organizations had the oppurtunity to go on a crusade again. We were pretty mellowed out before then or mellowing out. I guess you could blame the News recently that puts a negative spin on almost anything. Hell even in The Guardian (I think) there was an article regarding the UK falling into Pedophile Paranoia which is very visible. The people here have been mainpulated to be afraid of almost anything. But if anything it's the government, or shall I say NuLabour, that screwed us over.

By: warppooted

warppooted — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:24:37 +0000

You're not the only one who watches Code Geass, Gurren Lagann and FMA. Nothing to feel bad about.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:05:05 +0000

I thought it started in the 60s or 70s when some old bitch who wouldn't die thought everything on tv was against proper christian values. She had every network sued and forced the tv censors to edit shit out of every channel.

Yes a christ fundy...

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:37:46 +0000

If only the UK had Freedom of Expression to begin with. Unfortunately no one can oppose the government because we lack Freedom of Speech.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:23:32 +0000

This is what Britain is all about now didn't you? Banning the slightest thing that could 'offend'. Our government is filled with usless MP's. NuLabour did achieve one thing however, which was to create more laws...It's funny their recent campaigns to stay in have been nothing but 'We're not like the Conservatives!' Both parties are rotten to the core. I guess the only choice is between the Liberal Democrats or Green Party and possibly UKIP, they seem less detrimental to the people of the country. It's not surprising when we got morailistic ignorant tards in power i.e. John Beyer (this guys wanted to put people in jail for looking at porn, at least he's retired now), Harriet 'Hate'man or who can forget Liz Longhust (the very one who brought upon the Dangerous Pictures Act that pretty much killed every fetish out there and made those who enjoy it criminals). The government has been enjoying this sleuth of given power by these pro-censorship nutters. So why would the state not accept the offer of more control? The ASA has been reduced to quivering cowards. They're afraid of the state punishing them should they do anything that offends others. The one to look out for really is Media Watch UK, the one Beyer was head of. All of this started with just one case. The Liz Longhurst case. Ever since pictures that are deemed 'offensive' or 'dangerous' the pro-censorship twats have gained more confidence in inserting crazy ass laws and control other the public and the government laps it up. This also gives the state an excuse to 'protect' society. How the hell are we to hold the 2012 Olympics if we're that intolerant of anything? I can imagine foreigners being arrested left, right and center. At times like this I do wish even more that we had real Freedom of Speech like hardlined in the constitution of the US. Only just recently did we get a Supreme Court. I don't know if that's a good thing or bad looking at who runs the country at the moment. We need Zero!! Or someone equivelant...V, I hope you're out there.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:20:43 +0000

Tex, "freedom of expression" means your right to create and publish content of any form, regardless of how other people feel like it, and as long as it does not violate the law. This is equivalent to "freedom of speech" but is often used in the context of created works, rather than plain speech. Consequently, a country that issues bans based on subjective 3rd party views cannot be considered free. They always start with things that are socially unacceptable (porn, jews) and then move to other things such as "offensive" political messages which "cause social disturbance", protests and the opposition.

By: MusicalNote

MusicalNote — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:20:36 +0000

I feel bad. I actually get all those references. I mean, it's not like there's a lot of them, but still.

By: MusicalNote

MusicalNote — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:19:39 +0000

You could show the man in the same position, bound much harsher, his cock showing, and blood coming from a mouth and it wouldn't be banned.

By: MusicalNote

MusicalNote — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:17:45 +0000

"Thigh is showing."
With that sort of attitude, I'm surprised they didn't hunt down the model, tie her to a stake, and burn her for not wearing something that covered all but her eyes.

I find this ridiculous. I see nothing that suggests Rape.

Freedom of expression is soon to be dead. I'm sad. I love art.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:08:33 +0000

Isn't that the whole point of art (modern), to invoke senses?

Banning it would just defeat the purpose and is quite contradictory.

By: Char

Char — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:29:39 +0000

We need to stand up to the moral fags and their political correctness censorship it's going to far.
Now is the time for revolution.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:59:48 +0000

We need 2ch to possess a death note so the whole world will moves our way.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:45:27 +0000

Or a version with a man in the same pose and expression. That probably won't be banned showing the hypocrisy of this all.