As much as we may hate feminists and everything they pretend to stand for,

they kinda, sorta do have a point here, don't they.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/taking- a-halloween-selfie-with-jack-the-rippers-mutilated-victims-i s-not-fun-its-offensive-museum#comments

“Step straight into the world of Jack the Ripper and experience his crimes through the eyes of the women who were his victims. It’s educational, fun and scary!”

My word.

and torture goes on all the time. The London Dungeon and Madame Tussaud's are just two examples that have been going on for years with no-one objecting. Also, every film about killing or murder that is based on a true story could be said to be exploitative.
Time and distance make everything fair game sooner or later. Special pleading because the victims are women is just silly and rather offensive in itself.

is a man bleeding to death on a cross

photo taken with a replica of a corpse is staggeringly bad judgement.

We can find the story of Jack the Ripper and other tragedies compelling - exciting even - without such an explicit demonstration of bad taste.

It would be like the a theme ride of Titanic leaving corpses on deck. That wouldn’t happen and you know it. The story can be fun and entertaining but the victims remain sacrosanct.

do not depict him on a cross.

Nothing is sacrosanct after long enough. James Cameron was allowed to make a film depicting the horrific last moments of the Titanic - complete with convincing terror and death - nobody gave a ****.

Technically true but he was taking his bleeding time about it hence the spear in the side. In either case it was only a minor knock - back saviouring in two-three days

lungs would have collapsed much more quickly. I believe that's why breaking the victim's legs used to be considered an act of mercy.

Not a nice way to go, crucifixion.

understand they are solemn depictions, whereas in front of, for example, Christ the Redeemer in Rio, you do.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ddy_christ.jpg

people fall off deck and Jack slip out of Rose’s hands to his death. You don’t see any corpses and, as I said, you would never see corpses in a Titanic theme park ride – a direct equivalent to the London Dungeon or Jack the Ripper Museum.

Besides, at the end of the film, they show hundreds of corpses lying in the water.

9/11 and watching a snuff beheading video. The appropriate way to approach tragedies has shades of grey that we all navigate, but I think generally speaking we all have a good sense of what is and isn’t bad taste. And I think you know that inviting people to have photos taken with face-up corpses of murdered victims - whenever these events took place - is bad taste.

of things. Personally, I find 'Take Me Out' unbelievably offensive to me as a human being, but I don't get outraged about it, protest or demand it be taken off screens. I just don't watch it and choose to feel a certain way about those who do.

Really?

He's always been a strange child, hasn't he?

upset/disappointed by it, just as they may upon reading some of my off-colour Awimb posts.

So basically, your mum.

For some reason I have a memory of you posting a picture of her which showed that he arms were, indeed, hefty.

Have I imagined that?

my freedom to make off-colour remarks when among like-minded folks who may wish to do the same. Of course, the nature of the Internet means you can't control who reads what you write. This is, I acknowledge, problematic.

But just as shouting and swearing in a rowdy pub is socially acceptable, even though some people present may object, so is being naughty on Awimb, imo.

to about anything. So if these people want to feel upset, good luck to them. My only objection is when they suggest that their freedom to be upset should somehow trump my freedom to indulge in a legal activity of which they may disapprove.

I have no objections, moral or aesthetic, to the larger lady.