[alyasa]

Again, it's only iffy; because of our own perceptions. I do believe she is trying to force the person viewing the picture to de-sexualize the picture. I believe she deliberately made the picture rather sexual, but then using her artistic integrity(?) forces us to de-sexualize the picture at our own risk. By titling the picture innocuously, using soft, slightly out-of-focus photography, a palpable aura of play and carelessness, and awkward framing and mannerisms of the subjects themselves, she is making it ever so 'artistic' and culturally relevant. But then, on the periphery, our eyes catch a glimpse of something so inherently taboo, that to even speak its name would be to call it upon us, something so horrifying that even being near it, forces us, everyday, to cleanse ourselves in the fire of machine guns, helicopters, tanks and bombs, huge bombs. No, the greatest crime this picture has committed, I think, is that it has dared to insinuate that the vagina could ever be innocent. Doesn't anyone remember what Eve did to Adam? We could still be in Heaven right now...