I mean, you have that goofy expression on the Alpaca’s face with a big, ole man standing behind it, holding it by the neck.
Really?
Like I said, maybe it’s me. Maybe normal people just see an Alpaca being shorn. NOT what could easily be a cover shot for a beastiality porno flick.
But that picture was on the front page of the Romney newspaper.
Large and in color.
Here it is from a wider angle.
Does anyone else think that particular shot should have been edited out?
Yes, it should not have been used for the reason you cite. But it was chosen specifically for the reason you cite. The media sometimes use images that hint at taboo activities to grab readers’ attention and, if challenged, they say there was nothing overt in the depiction. This picture is obviously a deliberate attempt to suggest something that, in reality, wasn’t happening but hints at something darker. We can be sure of that intent because of the coupling of the image with sexual double entendres (e.g., “clip joint”; “Shorn Again”).
I’ve been seeing this more often as old media becomes more desperate for readership. Journalistic standards have dropped through the floor.
I don’t know… What Shyb says makes sense…but I still just think you’re a weirdo haha!
thats funny I didn’t see what you saw at all.