(Possibly NSFW) How is it possible that adults can be confused about what female genitalia look like?

The issue is not whether the young woman’s genitals were exposed—they obviously were—but whether she did it on purpose.

I’m not sure if anyone is doubting what’s down there, I see this as more of a “Oh lawd, kids don’t do that, do they?” by some of the more naive school officials.

“Really looking at that image, we’re not sure that’s what it is at all. We think it was the way she was sitting and the angle of her gown,” spokesperson Dawn Creason told WSOC-TV.

A quote from the article. At least one person, presumably a female, is not sure what she is seeing. How can that be?

@josie Because really, from that angle, and with thighs in the way, who can tell what they are looking at? It could be dark underwear or a bush. Too big a deal over nothing.

I think the @SavoirFaire is right on the controversy. In the quote, Creason, to me at least, is saying she isn’t sure if she is seeing the young woman purposely exposing herself for the photo, or if the quick action of the camera caught the young woman while she was repositioning her legs and clothing and you are just seeing her thighs pushed together.

It’s not always entirely clear, many people still believe that Lay Gaga has a penis.

Well, leave it to beaver. I was wondering when we’d see the photo without the censor box, @ratboy.

@josie Well, the parents can see the uncensored version of the picture, whereas I can only see what the article provides. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that they aren’t sure what they are seeing. In that case, I would say it’s not entirely inexplicable. Consider this (NSFW) picture. It’s an armpit.

And now I’ve just seen @ratboy‘s contribution with the uncensored picture. Given where it cuts off, I can see why there might be some ambiguity. Maybe she’s just crossing her legs.

Meh. There are bigger fish to fry. I don’t really know what I’d do if she were my kid.

Well, seeing the image, in @ratboy‘s link, without it being blacked out it, well, it looks that that’s pretty much what happened and that she did it on purpose. The whole “positioning her gown” thing doesn’t fly considering… it looks really premeditated… it looks like she was using that 8×10 glossy in her hands to keep herself covered until the right moment… her “lady parts” look freshly shaved, just for the occasion, and… she wasn’t wearing any panties! That’s a dead giveaway.

The picture doesn’t seem ambiguous to me LOL. The yearbook editors should have caught it or maybe they were in on it. I don’t know. Just a little fun and games, and while I agree with @Simone_De_Beauvoir, that there are bigger fish to fry, this young woman, depending on how her life plays out, 5 or 10 or 20 years from now, she may be very, very sorry about that little moment of bad or perhaps just less than good, judgement, now photographically documented, for posterity.

@lillycoyote Posterity or posterior!

I am aware that quite a few full grown Afghani and Iraqi males have no idea how female genitalia looks like simply because they’ve never been exposed to it one way or another. I also have met a few that believe that women at some point just randomly give birth to kids and find the idea of sex with a woman utterly apalling as if it were some sort of taboo.

If it is nudity, it sure is not very clear nudity. The picture is very fuzzy and looks to me like it’s been doctored in Photoshop. The eyes of the girl look really weird, too. Something isn’t right there. This looks pretty fake to me.

I too think the eyes look like they have been photoshoped, @wundayatta. Even the va jayjay area looks suspect.

@bkcunningham Even the va jayjay looks suspect. I laughed til I cried over that statement!