Whats the fuss? as I said elsewhere, thats what the internet is for! Check out Google Trends to discover what people search for.
I'm not saying it's bad per se, I'm just saying I'm surpirsed to see it so openly displayed. In some ways it makes me glad, because I thought p.n was much more controlled by "moral majority" people. Many things from the USA are.
I'm also glad to see the reactions here on APUG are so calm. I was a little worried that people would bash me for using "bad language" or p.n for displaying porn.
While I personally found John Runnings work extremely boring and cliché -- I mean, how many shots of naked women taken by aging men do we need? -- I found the other photographer's shots (whose name I forgot) with the full figured woman having a go at herself quite allright from a subject matter standpoint. Technically it could need improvement.
I've spent a significant amount of time over there, trying to see what all the fuss and outrage was about... and every search returned *nothing* I could, stretching - REALLY stretching, - call "pornographic."
I will acknowledge that there are some who find the slightest expression of bare skin offensive ... one only has to consider the draping of the Statue of "Justice" in the Nation's Capital. I suppose that, to some, the exposure of (some my want to look away!) an exposed woman's ankle would be far beyond the pale ... but I would really like to decide the level of "pepperiness" for myself.
Possibly, the moderators over there have agreed with the "offensiveness" and have removed those images.
Can someone explain to me why there is a genre of "art" photography that consists of unattractive photographs of unattractive nude people? The problem isn't that such pictures are shocking, it's that they're repulsive. Here's a related question: why are Weston's nude photographs held in such high regard?