If they actually removed it, and didn't have anything in the rules about topicality or humor, they suck and should be ridiculed
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
580 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
15364 readers
1271 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He got to keep his ribbons, he wasn't disqualified or anything and his other miniatures stayed up.
Some things can be expected not to work as a display in public.
Only people who know would know. I don't see the problem.
I think the problem is they don't want this to become a 'thing' with people trying to push the envelope further and further.
Somebody saw a problem and got it removed. Personally, I couldn't care less because the creator really should have seen this coming, at least as well as they saw them coming.
You.. could.. care less?
Awww he does care. Even if it’s only a little.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Eh, we have nude statues in public places, paintings too. Like, not in museums, in the open.
This model isn't even nsfw at all, it just references the subject of pornography, with one specific "genre" that's exemplified by a brand.
But, hey, they didn't penalize the maker, so it's all good to me :)
load more comments
(35 replies)
They at least let him keep his prize, though.
Ugh that just seems like fighting tightwaddery with more tightwaddery
Do we really need to put "no sex scenes" into the rules for a family friendly event?
What sex scene? There isn't one.
What is in the model is, at most a reference to a type of porn, or a specific "brand" of porn.
The model doesn't include any images of any company producing porn, nor any signs visible in the pictures available that anything sexual happened. There's no jizz on the couch, in other words. Edit: there is the sweat stain though, which could be considered a post sexual stain, despite it not being inherently sexual. My couch has an ass shaped spot if I have to sit down after a shower before dressing.
This makes the model a bit of humor, maybe satire if you want to stretch the term satire far enough.
So, if the rules don't prohibit joke models, there's nothing about the model itself that's a problem for a "family friendly" event. Which, that term is getting a little damn old at this point, since it's being used as code for anti-drag arguments as well now. Which is off topic, but you might want to know the term is being coopted by bigots so you can decide if you want to avoid it or not.
Seriously, there is nothing explicit in that model. It references porn tropes, but in a way that the only way someone would know the reference is to have either enjoyed fake casting couch porn themselves, or have run into that trope in other ways (which, let's be real, chances of it being other ways approaches zero).
No kid is going to see this model and be harmed in any way whatsoever. Any kid that would get the joke is either old enough that it isn't a problem, or has way more important issues to be addressed.
So, yeah, if you don't want to allow even the most oblique references to adult subject matter, that needs to be in the rules.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The cheek prints on the cushion are an excellent touch.
The state fair are a bunch of turds. Art is meant to provoke.
The cheek prints makes me think the judges knew exactly what was happening here since they looked at it closely enough to give it an award. More likely is that some karen made a stink and they removed it to avoid the hassle.
A piece he described as a “creepy sex dungeon” was removed before judging last year.
Yeah, so this isn't this guy's first time pushing the envelope with the miniatures art.
He should do That Pool next year.
Pool's closed.
AIDS, everybody out!
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's official: Kentucky hates fun.
Edit: also, for those who don't want to give the New York Post any clicks- https://www.lpm.org/news/2024-08-21/kentucky-state-fair-removes-winning-miniature-depicting-pornography-set
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well that got the most genuine laugh of anything I've seen today. We should do more shenanigans at these events.
That's objectively hilarious.
Poling added that “the guys” who may have been dragged to look at the miniature displays “got to enjoy a build that was meant specifically for them, in an area they might not otherwise be entertained.”
I mean.. he isn’t wrong..
15 years ago I did a school paper on the pros of psychoactive drugs, including a presentation in front of my class.
Nowadays I'd have to make a public YouTube video to stop the hate I'd receive. Or at least get kicked out of class.
Nobody really cared about stuff that wasn't affecting them.
Did they somehow not see the camera blatantly on the desk, feeding an image to the monitor, directly of the couch? Did they not see the butt imprint on the couch? Even if they didn't recognize the set it was based on, it was pretty blatant.
Well, it might have been judged by elderly Kentuckians who haven't seen porn since it was shot on film, if ever. So I don't find it surprising they went "Wow, super detailed couch! Give this guy a prize!"
There’s a little clapperboard on it that says “The Casting Couch”
Article says it wasn't there at judging.
Well I only opened the article to see the aforementioned buttcheek indents
I would have assumed the Stanley parable.
Then Stanley spread his cheeks and waited...
Yeah… that’s fair actually, it really is pretty hard to ‘fake casting couch’ your relatives
load more comments
(1 replies)