To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Wednesday, February 15, 2017


I hope everyone had a good Valentine's Day, or at least has plans to celebrate it fully in the days to come. Before the 14th I touched on the topic of Internet folk messing with images and either intentionally altering them without permission, or just attributing things (like quotes) to the wrong people. I promised a more detailed follow-up and here it is:

( And very possibly not even Hannum! )

They say we are ‘free society’ but we all know that nothing is free. Everything has a cost and I think that while it should be OK to promote and create just about anything, there should be a cost to intentionally creating something false at the expense of someone who is unaware their image or their work is being used to promote something they have not consented to. Whether it’s the “fake news” we hear about, or knowingly attributing quotes to the wrong person, these things should be permissible…………but come, like everything else, at a reasonable cost. My suggested price-tag is simple:

After all, the average person has ten fingers, so losing one is not the end of the world. And if something is really important to you, what’s one finger? Losing a finger to something you really believe is important demonstrates your commitment. Below is my proposed list of things that should definitely be permitted……..but only at the cost of a finger:

-fake news. If you create fake news just to screw with people and manipulate sentiment, the next time you manipulate anything, it should be with one less finger.

-assigning someone's clever quip to someone more famous ( the Freudian "assholes" quote that was actually created by Debihope on Twitter was what started this finger idea.) Misquoting someone accidentally, or out of ignorance should not cost a finger, however..............just ridicule.

-deleting someone’s name from their work and posting it as an anonymous piece
(I've had this happen to me)

-altering someone’s art or writing without their permission and having it appear that it is their original work (removing the original dialog from a cartoon and replacing it with words the cartoonist never penned.)
(I've had this happen to me, as well.)

-altering someone else’s work and having it appear as your own work…..(this should probably cost two fingers, but I’ll settle for one to keep the law simple)
(And yes, this too has happened to me.)

-Photo-shopping relatively innocent images to add prurient aspects that in no way are connected to the individuals being manipulated.  As a spanking enthusiast, my best example would be the adding of pink patches to the behinds of people who may not be in any way connected to, or interested in spanking, like so:

(This adorable bit of exposure can be found on blogs all over the 'spankosphere'. It resonates with people because it is an acutely embarrassing public display of a usually private kink....should such a thing happen as shown. Unfortunately a quick "Search Google for this image" eventually reveals:

Ta-da! Where did the pink go? Wow, this lady heals quickly, eh? Nah, this was somebody's prurient little project and should cost a finger.

-Captioning an innocent photo to make it appear that the subject is saying things they might never say in real life. (Again, the best example is the captioned spanking image whose  subject is just a plain attractive female smiling into the camera…..without any implement or background suggesting she is in any way into spanking.)

( Just LOOK at this! This poor girl (somebody's daughter) had a nice picture taken of her that made it onto the Internet and someone cheesily inserted a crapily Photoshopped switch into her hand and added dialog that is in no way connected to her gesture, pose, or expression, and is probably NOT something this little lady was thinking when this shot was taken. There are plenty of pictures of women holding spanking implements all over the Internet, so why do this?. This is the sleazy defiling of an 'innocent' and at the very least should cost a finger.)

And though it has nothing to do with the Internet, I always felt rubbernecking an accident as a driver should cost a finger as well. It's a ghoulish indulgence that delays all of the people behind you who just want to get on with their day. As such a finger seems the perfect price of admission for ogling someone else's misfortune. Perhaps when the Police and EMT arrive on the scene, this young lady should show up as well? 

(Despite her car-halting good looks and outfit, I'll bet after a few digital dismemberments, traffic would be moving along at an impressive clip!)


  1. Replies
    1. You'd be surprised how many people were fooled though! That colorized version made its way onto a ton of blogs.

    2. Shilo's been posting my handiwork in his blog lately no "colorization" necessary

    3. I'll have to check that out.

  2. Right on Dude!

    Could not agree more about the nasty nature of co-opting innocent people's images. I wish I was more surprised about it though

    1. That people DO it doesn't surprise me as much as how many people FALL for it! Some of the stuff I've seen is so poorly faked that anyone with eyes should be able to tell the photo isn't real. And if you're suspicious, all you have to do is right-click the image, select "Search Google for this image" and look at the results. An altered shot will almost always show up in its original form near the bottom of the results. So easy!

      Anytime I see something that seems 'too good to be true' my assumption is that it probably isn't and i right-click it to see.

    2. I don't quite get what the issue is with captioning. It's not as if people believe that the person in the photo (usually an actress or other public figure) actually said the words in the caption. Similarly the Freud "quote." I doubt many really believe that Freud made that quip. It's irony and parody. Parody in particular may be a fairly low form of literature, but it does have a place.

    3. Somehow I think if your daughter did some modelling for an Internet feature on "Summer Fun" and posed smiling with an ice cream cone, and someone saw that cute image, stole it, Photoshopped a huge penis where the cone was, added a few splotches of semen and captioned the photo: "I'm just a cum-slut who can't get enough", and posted it on a Tumblr site where it got re-blogged until it was everywhere........ as a father you might want to charge the perpetrator more than a finger. It's a violation.

      I also think on the more 'public' or even long dead popular personality, to parody is one thing, but it's wrong to take someone ELSE'S quote and attribute it to the famous person for whatever reason but in doing so, thereby denying credit to the real person who said it. Freud has enough real and fake quotes of his own, why steal someone else's who deserves proper credit?

      Besides, I didn't say people couldn't do these things.....just that, like anything else, there should be a .......fee.

    4. As for captioning in general? I can't stop people from doing it, but just like some people can't tell a joke, many can't caption. Not saying they should lose a finger, but they do warrant a groan.

  3. This seems a bit like an odd rant. I hope it hasn't happened to you (much at least). I've been known to take others' images (mostly artwork) that particularly appeals to me for some reason and add (or remove or change) captions to make it MORE appealing. Or just use an image and make a page with said image and an added "very short story". Since I never publish these images (and don't sign them or claim them as my own work) and only keep them for my personal reasons, I hope this isn't one of your pet peeves. If it is, tough titty. Nothing personal.

    1. Ranting is what I feel I do best, (think of me as a kinky version of Sam Kinison). As for "personal use"? Go for it! But once you make those pervy alterations public? Well, have that finger ready.)

    2. Sam Kinison seemed plenty kinky as it was. ;-) I miss his humor. I haven't yet (as far as I can remember) published any of my "pervy alterations" but if I did and anyone came after my finger or any other body part, they'd be in for a very unpleasant surprise! Just sayin...

  4. How terribly old fashioned! Once there's a photo of you out there with bare cheeks, be prepared for a very embarrassing butt colouring!!! ;-)

    1. Like I said, I can't and wouldn't stop the practice. I just think it only fair that there be a reasonable fee for doing so. (I think mine is VERY reasonable.)

      And when it comes to some things I am old-fashioned.

  5. Looking at the photo of the nearly-nude young woman apparently trying to cover her pretty much bare bottom with her hands, the 'colorized' version at least seems to make more sense--possibly she's trying to hide evidence of recently having been spanked, perhaps by the guy she's walking with.

    In the presumably real, un-retouched version (which I have a copy of in my own files), why is she attempting to cover her exposed bumcheeks since she's wearing that mini-thong bikini in public after all? "If you don't want people to see your effectively bare derriere, dear girl, just don't wear that swimsuit out in public." (Her companion doesn't especially look dressed for swimming, and there's no sign of a beach or pool to be seen in the photo.)

    Maybe she simply doesn't want her cute caboose photographed in such an open display--but good luck with that, sweetcheeks, given all the camera features included in cell phones these days... --C.K.

    1. I don't mind the original. (Although his shorts resemble trunks to me, and the place looks like a resort of some kind. ) Like you said, going out there like that was her choice. But doctoring the photo is wrong and misleading.