I became the fodder for a news article a week ago which attempted to drag my reputation through a 1950s rectitude filter. The article, which you may or may not have read, included:
- The fabrication of a “sex scandal”. (Which should be the real scandal here.)
- Deliberate misinformation and libelous claims, by referring to a selection of my Tumblr blog posts, taken totally out of context.
You’re about to see the posts IN context, and withOUT the misinformation, so that you can see I have nothing to hide – unlike the press, who intentionally omitted the images and commentary that accompanied the blog posts in question.
At the risk of teaching digital grandmothers to suck eggs, may I remind you that Tumblr’s conventions are blogging, “hearting” (liking) and reblogging posts, whether links, images, videos, text, audio etc. These types of content are often internet memes – which are blogged, hearted or reblogged for their humour value, or magazine materal, for its aesthetic merit.
And needless to say (but contrary to what the article may imply) none of the content was created by me originally.
OK, so let’s have a look at some of the posts referred to in the press:
The alleged “guide to acceptable stalking”
As you can clearly see, the so-called ‘guide’ is actually a cartoon poking fun at online stalking behaviour, and commenting on the oddity of stalking being accepted by society when it’s done on Facebook. To which I then added an ironic and humorous comment summarising the cartoon: “Stalking.. you’re doing it right if you’re doing it on Facebook”. Both the image and the comment are ommitted, in a clear attempt to misinform the reader and create the impression of some sort of step-by-step ‘guide’ on stalking that I supposedly endorse, or even allegedly wrote.
The alleged “guide to making one’s own sex toys”
Once again, the word ‘guide’ is used to imply that I am personally showing people how to make their own sex toys – whereas the actual post depicts the cover of a book still sold publicly on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk.
The book cover from the original imprint was the one on Tumblr which I reblogged. And again, my commentary was left out, namely that I thought it was amusingly frightening: “Be afraid! A DIY book on how to make your own sex toys”.
The slogans such as “put a condom on your ear and f..k what you heard” and “drunk texting is the new foreplay”
These were reblogged Tumblr slogans, one from the Wordboner blog and the reblog referred to the ability of readers to get it on a T-shirt. Taken out of its context, it’s missing any of its intended humour or irony – where in reality it’s just a funny T-shirt slogan – no more harmful that universally worn slogans like ‘Shit Happens’, or even ‘FCUK’.
The alleged “lewd picture of two elephants”.
This is part of another internet meme called Demotivate Us. The characteristics are a black framed photographic image with an all-caps headline and a second line of captions. A simple Google Image search for this meme yields about 51,000 results while meme sites such as memebase exist solely to create, re-caption, and rate memes like this. Note again that my comment in which I expressed my opinion about the image was left out, as was the fact that it’s tagged as a meme and not a photo taken or created by me.
The post for “dyes for pubic hair assuming you have any”
For once, my commentary has been included, but the entire context was removed. The image was of an actual American drug store product. Not a call-to-arms for pubic hair dyeing, not a how-to. The reference to having any pubic hair, is a comment on the current mainstream fashion for Brazillian bikini waxing.
As for the alleged “women in compromising positions” and “pornographic photos”, they are all either fashion and celebrity images from online magazines, or ads and covers from modern and vintage glossy magazines – and nothing more than you would see in any major newsagency. Here are some examples:
Dita Von Teese for Vogue
Sacha Grey advertisment for Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) to promote animal birth control
A hilarious fashion shot – Daria Werbowsky for Vogue as described by New York Magazine in their monthly fashion magazine review as the best WTF fashion moment for the month.
Also in the same vein, the cover of a 1970s car magazine, with commentary “from the days when there were naked girls on car ads”
Another vintage photo, from the 1950s – a bikini clad Model: Asya Arteyeva in a 1950s Cheverolet.
A couple of Lindsay Lohan shots – one relating to a “car crash couture” fashion shoot for The Sunday Times Magazine as chronicled on a number of blogs
and one other fashion magazine shoot where she wears a sheer mesh shirt – commentary line is “Lohan – a pinup for bad girls”
Kate Moss as photographed by Mary McCartney part of a New York exhibition: Kate Moss Portfolio and Other Stories exhibit at Danziger Projects.
An apt summary of the impact that Kate Moss has had on high fashion photography:
“Unlike any model in the history of fashion photography, Kate Moss has proved to be a unique subject blurring the boundaries between fashion photography and contemporary art. In a career that has lasted 23 years to date, it can be said that Moss’s particular beauty and singular figure have made her more of a muse than a supermodel. No matter what she is wearing (or not wearing) Moss invariably becomes the subject of the photograph, supercharging the image and inspiring photographers to create some of their most imaginative work. Unselfconscious and unapologetic, Moss’s persona and sensuality have not only changed our notions of beauty but also influenced the culture at large.”
As you can see for yourself, none of these images are linked to any form of restricted material or “pornography” – as defined by Australian Internet Law.
In summary, my blog posts were taken out of context described innacurately, with deliberate intent to mislead the public, defaming me in the process.
Whether I should have self-censored or de-linked my personal curation site away from any online work profiles, is a moot point. If they were sitting in isolation, the same “scandal” fabrication and bending of the truth would have taken place, given what happened.
So now that you’ve seen my posts IN context, with their accompanying images and comments, I’d like you to consider one more thing:
Why did the article leave them out?