Anyone into hairy women? Options

[EricBarbour]

I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989.

(He's a real comedian.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 26th August 2010, 12:28am

[gomi]

Uh, should I move this into the BLP forum?

[EricBarbour]

Uh, should I move this into the BLP forum?

I dunno--it's not a BLP, the photo is claimed to be 20 years old, and who know what happened to the subject. You choose.

[Milton Roe]

I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989.

(He's a real comedian.)

This one could make money for a body-waxing business.

[Somey]

...who know what happened to the subject.

She probably got rich in the hair-export business. Did you see that Chris Rock documentary, Good Hair? There's big bucks in that stuff!

Meanwhile, I doubt anyone in the porn industry has even seen a pube in about 15 years, so she's probably safe from those people at least.

[CharlotteWebb]

Uh, should I move this into the BLP forum?

I dunno--it's not a BLP, the photo is claimed to be 20 years old, and who know what happened to the subject. You choose.

May I suggest the tar-pit?

Then we can ask Ottava how old he perceives the subject to be.

[SB_Johnny]

I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989.

(He's a real comedian.)

Iranian girlfriend with a wedding ring, no less.

[Cimorene]

I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989.

(He's a real comedian.)

Iranian girlfriend with a wedding ring, no less.

Not necessarily. I have a ring almost identical to hers that I wear on my left hand's ring finger, and I'm not married. Granted, I'm not Iranian, so there may be culture differences that I'm not aware of (though she's posing nude for and supposedly granting consent for photographs of her to be posted on Wikipedia, so that may not be the case).

[dogbiscuit]

I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989.

(He's a real comedian.)

May have given permission for him to take the picture assuming private use, but the 20 years old comment surely guarantees that she gave no consent for its publication into the public domain in 2008 (though it depends under what laws and what time you judge the issue of ownership of the image and the image rights).

[Son of a Yeti]

Who said "hairy women"?

[Abd]

The photo purports to be an example of Hirsutism but I rather doubt it. Source for this? Original research?

The permission of the subject for this use is very, very shaky. The internet wouldn't have been relevant to her then. But the elephant in this living room is the original research involved, claiming her as an example, when her hair is just not that extraordinary. It's an excuse to put up porn, that's what I think.

The woman in the photo does not appear to meet the definition of "hirsutism" at this medical dictionary.

So why is this photo in the article?

[Anonymous editor]

image should be deleted

[Somey]

The permission of the subject for this use is very, very shaky. The internet wouldn't have been relevant to her then.

Very good point. In 1990, it might not even have occurred to her that such a photo would be seen by potentially the whole world, and as the main image on an article about a medical condition that she probably didn't even think of herself as having, if she even knew it was considered a "condition."

But the elephant in this living room is the original research involved, claiming her as an example, when her hair is just not that extraordinary. It's an excuse to put up porn, that's what I think.

I thought that was assumed?

The woman in the photo does not appear to meet the definition of "hirsutism" at this medical dictionary.

Noting, of course, that the topic in an actual medical dictionary (presumably reviewed by medical professionals) contains no naked pictures of women whatsoever. It's almost like they didn't think such images were absolutely essential to ensuring they were providing "adequate coverage"!

[SB_Johnny]

The woman in the photo does not appear to meet the definition of "hirsutism" at this medical dictionary.

From the link you gave: "Such male-pattern growth of terminal body hair usually occurs in androgen-stimulated locations, such as the face, chest, and areolae". That actually is what's in the pic, last I looked.

[ulsterman]

Noting, of course, that the topic in an actual medical dictionary (presumably reviewed by medical professionals) contains no naked pictures of women whatsoever. It's almost like they didn't think such images were absolutely essential to ensuring they were providing "adequate coverage"!

Surely by definition naked pictures of women (or even pictures of naked women) don't provide adequate coverage. They don't even illustrate adequate coverage. Still, I wouldn't say that this example proves a great deal. I've looked at more than one medical dictionary, and they'd all benefit from more illustrations. Not necessarily Shankbone-type ones, of course!

[Emperor]

Could this kind of thing get you stoned in Iran?

[The Joy]

Could this kind of thing get you stoned in Iran?

If they don't have marijuana, I guess?

[Somey]

Could this kind of thing get you stoned in Iran?

Only if you printed it out, wrapped some hashish in it, and smoked it.

(Edit - Oops, too late! )

I vaguely recall that they do have stoning in some rural Iranian communities for certain offenses (presumably including porn-related ones) under Sharia law, but I don't believe their society is so far-gone as to automatically assume guilt on the part of someone who simply appears in a photograph with no clothes on. As for the guy who took the photo... maybe, but they'd still have to prove malicious intent for a stoning, wouldn't they? Maybe they'd just give him 50 years and have done with it.

This post has been edited by Somey: Thu 26th August 2010, 9:58pm

[nableezy]

Could this kind of thing get you stoned in Iran?

Only if you printed it out, wrapped some hashish in it, and smoked it.

(Edit - Oops, too late! )

I vaguely recall that they do have stoning in some rural Iranian communities for certain offenses (presumably including porn-related ones) under Sharia law, but I don't believe their society is so far-gone as to automatically assume guilt on the part of someone who simply appears in a photograph with no clothes on. As for the guy who took the photo... maybe, but they'd still have to prove malicious intent for a stoning, wouldn't they? Maybe they'd just give him 50 years and have done with it.

The only "crime" stoning is a punishment for under sharia is adultery by a married person, male or female.

This post has been edited by nableezy: Thu 26th August 2010, 10:01pm

[Somey]

The only "crime" stoning is a punishment for under sharia is adultery by a married person, male or female.

Ahh, well then - I actually thought I'd read somewhere that there was some sort of serious corporal punishment for producing pornography, but I could have been mistaken about that. (Though I didn't actually use the word "crime," at least.) Sorry about that.

And I don't even watch Fox News!