Hey--if PDDers are going to be censored for using nonrespectful or 'offensive' language, then can we please not have naked hooters and coy crotch shots on this site?  

Thank you.

Fuckin' A

Are Gene or Dean Ween going to show? Crazed swearbox! My new band name! That or ... dipshits.

This picture is offensive, please reconsider allowing it on your blog.  I have been very supportive of PDD and have told many many folks, but if this is what can be displayed, I will change my stance most definitely.

Human bodies are offensive? Then shame on me for existing.

Jeezus people, ain't we easily offended, did you ever hear of tongue-in-cheek? Take a moment to research the album cover before whipping your fucking selves into a frenzy

It's this kind of stuff that makes me miss Duluth! Since I can't be there I hope someone will go as voodoo lady; shaking that stick and driving them crazy. 

On a side note, if the album cover is offensive the delicate-minded folks should pass by it rather than continue reading on about it.

Ps. Marc: awesome! See ya there, and I'll keep an eye peeled for ambitious Weener videographers.

Carla, maybe a few coy shots of Marc's penis, and some shots of big, bulging testicles.  And then PDD can blow the photo up real big, for us to see some lovely morning.

Really, really, quite truly tacky photo on PDD.  What are we, 12 yr old boys in junior high, salivating over the latest Playboy spread, which is exactly what this album cover looks like.

I'm with Buck on Guava. After that they just got ... weird. Then Phish came along and made it worse.

And Paul, I notice you're not inviting anyone to actually post shots of this guy's, or any guy's, genitals.  Why, because that would be inappropriate and offensive?

Exactly.

I'm always confused by the "this is a community blog" argument. It is not. It is a privately-owned for-profit website that allows community members to post and comment.

I was trying to differentiate between the notion of a community-owned blog, and a blog to which the community has access. PDD is the latter. As a business, the proprietors of PDD decide what is acceptable content. They may consider various inputs from the user community, but ultimately, the owners decide. 

I think my biggest problem may be my lack of problems. Maybe I'll take up algebra as a hobby.

Someone wasn't around during the Laura Bush's Bush post. ;)
I'm ok with the posting of the Ween cover art, as it is related, but honestly I always thought this cover art to be cheesy and unimaginative.
I'm not going to ask anyone to take it down or threaten never to come back, but there's a lot of other pieces of Ween album art that may have been more appropriate.

Oh, yeah, I missed that fact (duh!). OK, it is completely relevant (ignore my previous comment).

This is the worst thread in the history of PDD.

From the DNT, 10/31/2011- offered without comment:

Reader's view: Modesty and restraint needed to fight pornography
By Rosemarie Mitchell

Please display white ribbons against pornography the week of Oct. 30 to Nov. 6, as sponsored by Morality in Media.

It starts innocently with a boy cutting out newspaper ads of women's underwear and bikinis to make his own Playboy. That can lead to an obsession which can lead to real porn magazines, the Internet and, eventually, the use of women as sex objects. It can hurt his marriage and endanger his children.

Besides the ads, boys are exposed to a constant barrage of sexual images those of us over 40 never could have imagined. It includes cleavage and bikinis on every channel, from local news to movies. It also includes many teachers, store employees, neighbors, churches, Michelle Obama and others who disgrace our country and the many mothers who should be protecting their children.

We used to be able to turn off a channel or avoid movies. But women have increasingly been forcing their sexuality, shamelessly and selfishly, into the public arena where there is no off button. If men exposed themselves they'd be arrested. Cleavage and bikinis are no different.

Girls struggle with anorexia and depression and are becoming promiscuous or suicidal because self-centered and insensitive women force their sexuality into our faces, causing women great stress and confusion while tempting males.

By seeing their gender so willingly flaunt its sexuality, young women are brainwashed into thinking this is normal. So I don't totally blame them. They haven't been taught modesty. They "know not what they do," as Jesus said.

We're all to blame for tolerating it, for not complaining and for not boycotting businesses and programs that depict women sexually, all of which contributes to pornography and sex trafficking.

Pornography degrades women. But tell me why women willingly expose their bodies, justifying men's sick, hurtful behavior?

Rosemarie Mitchell

Duluth

I wore shorts and sandals this summer.

In some cultures (current and past), this would result in shaming, societal expulsion, and even physical harm. In some other times and places, I may have been pelted by stones for the crime of showing some leg. There are some people writing opinion letters at this moment who would decry a woman's lack of burqua and question her morals and the morals of any society that would allow it.

I have worn many ribbons for many causes, but I will not wear a ribbon that is for the purpose of shaming women and men and teaching how to fear sexuality and the human body.

See, this is what I meant.  I got sick of "If you're cool, then you must love this type of photo, and if you don't, you must be frigid."  

It's lame to put up a strawman or faux argument of "Anyone who is offended by this photo must fear sexuality and the human body," and then use this (false and insulting) point to try and undercut a legitimate argument.  Hey, I love sexuality, and there's nonstop porn at my house.  But if I want to look at naked hooters, I'll look at my own.  People can love to love, as it were, and still find this photo degrading.  Not everyone has to disagree, but we should be so over this faux line of argument.

New flash: you can love a women for her body AND her brains. They are not mutaully exclusive. The real "ism" or "ist" here is the insulting idea that a women can only be pretty or smart but not both. Insulting also is the idea that if you find someone beautiful you are disdainful of her intellect.

I don't know Ween from Wonk but it sounds like a musican is trying to do a pretty cool project here so I say you go Gartman!

Please continue to post beautiful women and I will continue to dream about them having big brains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_and_Cheese#Album_cover