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:


8 thoughts on “Kim Kardashian didn’t break the Internet. She showed us how it is Broken.”

  1. Facebook get worse I had my

    Facebook get worse I had my account of 8 years removed due to them not believing my name even so i sent proof of ID as I have taken my partners name after our wedding it was deemed I was using a false name. People have their accounts closed for a breast feeding picture, having their drag queen name or a pagan name or any other performing names trans people removed for sharing pics of their transformation the list goes on and on. But if your rich with facebook in you're pocket you have no issues at all at this rate everyone will start leaving and it can change its name to rich book.

  2. Raul J. It most certainly is

    Raul J. It most certainly is news when it comes to Facebook allowing some content while banning others. I'm the owner of Furiousfotog and don't post anything near "nude" photos yet have been banned twice. I pay for advertising on Facebook and also other promotions and the site in essence rewards that with harassment – allowing one person to continue to report images over and over instead of just blocking them from the content. Reporting is anonymous and FB is hard to reach if at all – so there is no appeal. 

    I am tired of society not holding people and entities accountable  



  3. Why does Eric Turner’s

    Why does Eric Turner's opinion matter? Of course he would say that. He's a model and he derives income from showing off his body. But more to the point, this is not news. The female form has always been given more leeway than the male form in the United States.


    • Q:   “Why does Eric Turner’s

      Q:   "Why does Eric Turner's opinion matter?"

      A:   Because he is entitled to his own opinion, especially when his modeling career directly reflects the industries' standards.


      C:   "Of course he would say that. He's a model and he derives income from showing off his body."

      R:   As opposed to Kardashian? Invalid point.


      C:   "But more to the point, this is not news. The female form has always been given more leeway than the male form in the United States."

      R:   That is WHY this is news, there is inequality in the business and restrictions to his success just because he is a male model who is playing by the industries' standards.

  4. Advertisement
  5. I had my facebook account

    I had my facebook account suspended for a week for sharing kim's nude butt photo. Not sure what the point of this article is.

    • I reported it and it was

      I reported it and it was found to be ok — not a violation.  People are losing the ability to conduct business on Facebook – legitimate business – due to these policies. They are subjective, and one person can report someone into losing their account. If the standards were actually objective rather that subjective based upon whom ever is reviewing them I would not have an issue. The point of this article is to highlight that there is a double standard on Facebook where legitimate photographers are having their work removedbecause it is male versus female, Not because it is nude.

  6. I agree that FaceBook has a

    I agree that FaceBook has a total double standard. I've seen where photos of Eric and others have led to them or the photographers like Michael Stokes have landed in FB jail and been banned. This is just ridiculous. These pictures are not pornographic. They are not crude or sexual. You don't see pubes, crack, genitals, sexual intercourse. They are just beautiful pictures of men with amazing bodies. I really don't know who is judging photos that are submitted. Obviously someone first has to complain and then the pic is reviewed. I've personally reposted all of the images mentioned here in their unedited versions, but my settings are "friends only." I guess I have open minded friends. No one has reported me. 


Leave a Comment