There will probably be outrage to what is on Huffington Post today (1 Viewer)

[badmojo1006]

Front page has a very detailed painting that links to a lot more detailed paintings

Won't link to it because I would probably get banned for a bit

 

[NCCommish]

Not sure why there should be controversy. It's art not porn.

 

[Christo]

What about the children?

 

[NCCommish]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

 

[Tom Servo]

Tacky on HuffPo? Just another day, Hoss.

 

[Freelove]

Some artist is attempting to express the beauty of the nude human form in a tasteful, non-exploitative manner?

This is the biggest thing to rock the art world since the old masters attempted to express the beauty of the nude human form in tasteful, non-exploitative manners.

 

[Tom Servo]

Some artist is attempting to express the beauty of the nude human form in a tasteful, non-exploitative manner?

This is the biggest thing to rock the art world since the old masters attempted to express the beauty of the nude human form in tasteful, non-exploitative manners.

But can you fap to it?

 

[badmojo1006]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

I agree it's Art, but somebody is going to get pushed out of shape because of it

 

[NCCommish]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

I agree it's Art, but somebody is going to get pushed out of shape because of it

Yeah I am sure but I think most people look at that and don't get a sexual vibe from it. I think it will be hard to gin up much outrage outside of the usual suspects.

 

[Christo]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

:whoosh:

 

[Tom Servo]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

I agree it's Art, but somebody is going to get pushed out of shape because of it

Yeah I am sure but I think most people look at that and don't get a sexual vibe from it. I think it will be hard to gin up much outrage outside of the usual suspects.

#NotallChristians

 

[jon_mx]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

I agree it's Art, but somebody is going to get pushed out of shape because of it

Yeah I am sure but I think most people look at that and don't get a sexual vibe from it. I think it will be hard to gin up much outrage outside of the usual suspects.

Good to see we already have preemptive outrage from the usual suspects about outrage from the other usual suspects.

 

[Fennis]

what do you call a guy with no arms or legs stuck to a wall?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

Did you see the one where the chick has a French horn in her lap? A FRENCH HORN!

 

[Fennis]

She can blow my horn

 

[Mr. Retukes]

What about the children?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

 

[TheAristocrat]

Wow, I am high.

 

[DrJ]

They've got something for everyone there, even the pedophiles.

 

[DrJ]

What about the children?

They've got them covered. Not with clothes or anything, but they included them in the "art".

 

[Freelove]

They've got something for everyone there, even the pedophiles.

If you saw anything even remotely sexual in those depictions, you brought it yourself. So I'd be careful about slinging that word around if I were you.

Which thank God I'm not.

 

[Hilts]

This is the only art article I'm seeing on Huffington Post:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5877924

 

[jon_mx]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

Did you see the one where the chick has a French horn in her lap? A FRENCH HORN!

Obviously, she is horny.

 

[badmojo1006]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

I agree it's Art, but somebody is going to get pushed out of shape because of it

Yeah I am sure but I think most people look at that and don't get a sexual vibe from it. I think it will be hard to gin up much outrage outside of the usual suspects.

#NotallChristians

No Tall Christians?

 

[jhib]

No sexual implications?

Those two frogs seem to be having a good time.

 

[NCCommish]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

I agree it's Art, but somebody is going to get pushed out of shape because of it

Yeah I am sure but I think most people look at that and don't get a sexual vibe from it. I think it will be hard to gin up much outrage outside of the usual suspects.

Good to see we already have preemptive outrage from the usual suspects about outrage from the other usual suspects.

Can you point me to my outrage?

 

[Christo]

What about the children?

Still art. There is no sexual implication there.

I agree it's Art, but somebody is going to get pushed out of shape because of it

Yeah I am sure but I think most people look at that and don't get a sexual vibe from it. I think it will be hard to gin up much outrage outside of the usual suspects.

Good to see we already have preemptive outrage from the usual suspects about outrage from the other usual suspects.

Can you point me to my outrage?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

No sexual implications?

Those two frogs seem to be having a good time.

Water/land, doesn't matter, frogs can go both ways. The both ways symbolism isn't even remotely subtle. These may be the dirtiest pics since the early days of Forrestmail.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

what do you call a guy with no arms or legs stuck to a wall?

Unless he's French I'm stumped.

 

[Tom Servo]

what do you call a guy with no arms or legs stuck to a wall?

Unless he's French I'm stumped.

 

[T Bell]

Some artist is attempting to express the beauty of the nude human form in a tasteful, non-exploitative manner?

This is the biggest thing to rock the art world since the old masters attempted to express the beauty of the nude human form in tasteful, non-exploitative manners.

But can you fap to it?

I fap to the Easter Island heads, so yeah, you can fap to it.