Art critic calls Fox News "sexually sick" for blurring out breasts on famous Picasso painting.

Courtesy of The Sydney Morning Herald:  

A leading US art critic has blasted a Fox news station for being "sexually sick" after the network blurred out the breasts on Pablo Picasso's The Women of Algiers (Version O) in a report about the masterpiece selling for a record-breaking $US179million ($227million) in New York on Monday. 

The New York magazine senior art critic Jerry Saltz took to Twitter to voice his disapproval, tweeting: "How sexually sick are conservatives & Fox News? They blurred parts of the Picasso painting #SickMinds." 

His consternation was echoed across various other Twitter users, who labelled the move "bizarre" and "pathetic", with one user including the hashtag #freethenipple, referencing the recent campaign against censorship of the female form. 

Here is the un-blurred versing of the painting.

Oh my god it's...it's...it's...well it's really nothing.

And remember this is the same network that regularly covers spring break so that they can show scantily clad women twerking, and once had a guest declare that women who are victimized by upskirt photos were asking for it.

Not only that but the female hosts on the various shows are famous for wearing short dresses and revealing enough decolletage to embarrass a Las Vegas showgirl.

Oh yeah Fox News should be the ones judging what is, or is not, prurient.

And what the hell is it about nipples that makes THEM the part of the breast that must not see the light of day?

This has bothered me for years.

It's just stupid.

"Is that your nipple I see?" Those words spoken by a North Carolina police officer might soon mean jail time, as a new bill is set to make a woman's areola indecent.

Actress Milla Jovovich should probably avoid North Carolina.

Here is the portion of the bill referred to in the headline:

 (a1) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire shall be guilty of a Class H felony. An offense committed under this subsection shall not be considered to be a lesser included offense under G.S. 14‑202.1. 

(a2)For the purposes of this section, the term "private parts" means external organs of sex and of excretion, including the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast.

That's right ladies. Your next nip slip in North Carolina might see you locked up in a prison cell for up to ten years where you and your now pornographic body part can rethink your wardrobe choices.

Here is a bit more about how this whole thing came about:

Brown, whose district is more than 100 miles from Asheville, said she hadn’t planned to get involved with the issue until she started getting calls about it from her constituents. “I felt that, if this was of concern to my constituents, it was going to be of concern to others as well.” 

Brown says topless protests are actually illegal under the current law, but there’s some confusion about it, dating to conflicting court rulings from the 1970s. 

North Carolina law already forbids “indecent exposure,” but it doesn’t specifically define “private parts” as including breasts. 

The proposal adds that definition, including “the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast,” with an exception made for breastfeeding. 

“All we are doing is codifying the Supreme Court definition of ‘private parts,’" added committee Chairwoman Rep. Sarah Stevens, R-Surry. “That’s it. “

Well at least they are giving a pass to women who are using the offending protuberance to feed their babies.  But if you don't have a baby hanging off of those things then you are headed up the river my dear.

Okay well as you know I am quite liberal, and probably never more so than when it comes to the issue of sexuality and nudity.  If you want to walk around with your goodies hanging out, regardless of your age or gender, I have nothing negative to say about it. (Except in Alaska of course. Some things are simply not meant to be exposed to the elements.)

However I do have a question.

Exactly WHY is it that the aerola is the portion of the female breast deemed unacceptable? And why is it ONLY the female's that is considered so?

Now look I'm a guy, and I dearly love breasts. But personally I find the entire breast rather pleasing to the eye and do not necessary consider the actual nipple to be any more erotic than say the cleavage, or the side, or really ANY other part of the breast.

So why exactly is THIS, according to this new North Carolina bill, okay?

And the above picture, which actually covers up much more of the breast, considered "indecent?"

Anybody have an answer?