Kim Kardashian didn’t break the Internet. She showed us how it is Broken.

Like you, I’ve been inundated with copycat photographs depicting that black dress and bare ass.  What do they say?  Imitation is the best form of flattery?  I am sure most were not flattering Mrs West when they bared some bum.  Some were showing their’s looked better, even with less oil.  Others were mocking how ridiculous the poses were. And I am sure some were looking to jump on the fame train and maybe bring themselves back into the limelight.  I think my favorite to date was the first one I saw, posted by Miss Coco Peru.  Just looking at her face, I know what she’s thinking.  To murder a quote from her self-written Trick monologue, It is big, it is not beautiful, and you’re not gonna love it.

The whole Break the Internet slag was an over the top pretentious statement that just screamed in that annoying voice “hey, look at me, I can do anything.  I can do things other people cannot.”  And yet, she didn’t break the internet.  As you know her greasy moon was beaten out by an actual news story involving another celestial body about the Rosetta spacecraft landing on a moving comet.  I think one of the scientist’s shirts clad with scantily clad women garnished just as much news as Kim’s bare bum, if not more.  Unfortunately, her bum has more lasting power than incredible science or a fashion don't.

So, how did this bare all Paper photoshoot not break the Internet, but instead show us how the internet is broken?  It is the double standard that several of my facebook acquaintances have said exists when it comes to posting pictures on facebook and online.  The facebook page of Break the Internet still has Kim’s pic as its profile picture.  If this were a pic of a man in the same pose, it would have been pulled.  It appears that female crack, or at least Kim Kardashian’s is okay to show. 
I will most likely never follow Paper or Break the Internet on facebook or anywhere else.  I do however follow some pretty good looking men, artists, and other blogs.  Within the past year or so, I can recall three individuals that have had issues with facebook threatening to pull their pages and pics if they were not removed or censored.  One handsome friend from Las Vegas, Ethan Reynolds (worth a look as well at I am Ethan Reynolds) promotes Xwear and has had some battles in the past with bathing suit pics not meeting the supposed fair practices of facebook.  Mr. Brent Corrigan (real name Sean Paul Lockhart), porn star, director, entertainer, has posted several times that he was leaving facebook due to harassment from the powers that be over some of his more racey posts and pics.
I contacted fitness model Eric Turner and asked him if I could share his point of view on the subject.  I think out of all the people I follow, he has been the most active in posting about this double standard.  Just recently, he posted this pic from Michael Stokes Photography and this comment from his facebook page. 
FB's no nudity rule includes the idea that you can show implied nudity, but if you can see the crack or pubes, it's inappropriate. So… Can anyone explain to me the double standard in FB not removing all the photos of Kim Lardassian's full-on butt off the site? Allan Spiers Photography, Michael Stokes Photography, FuriousFotog, and many male models INCLUDING myself have all, at times, been banned temporarily from FB for posting pics that show even less. So in protest people have reported the images of KK, with the response from FB that they don't violate the community standards. I'm debating posting some side nudity to protest the obviously-sexist double standard.
Where do you stand? 
Do we channel Whitney and say "crack is whack" for everyone? 
Do we actually thanks Kim Kardashian for not breaking the internet as in making it crash like Ellen did with Twitter, but possibly pushing forward to break a facebook rule regarding showing too much.  Was that her intent?  Most likely no, but maybe there will be forward progression about this topic.
What are your thoughts?
Here's more from Eric Turner …
If this were a photo of a beheading, FB would allow it- uncensored. If this were a photo of animal abuse, FB would allow it- uncensored. If this were a photo of drug usage, FB would allow it- uncensored. If this were a photo of a woman breastfeeding a dog, FB would allow it- uncensored. If this were a revealing photo of breasts, FB would allow it- uncensored. If this were a picture of Kim Kardashians butt, full- on, FB would allow it- uncensored.

But because I'm a male model, and it shows a side profile of my butt, it is against FB Community Standards, and actually WAS removed last year when I posted it- uncensored. Apparently, 'art,' 'pornography,' and 'appropriate,' are subjective terms with a sliding scale, determined by ones personal views. The FB terms of service are ambivalent enough to create a very sexist #FBDoubleStandard, where personal views are the determining factor. Photographers I know have even been banned for posting photos of male models in their underwear, without any implied nudity, and even without bulge!

Do you think it's fair that such photos of men aren't allowed, while similar photos of women, and blood and gore are?

If you want to see the uncensored version:


What do you think?