So, more to the point. Apparently, MySpace feels that the appearance of a fully clothed inflatable doll, with nicely done makeup, just having had her hair done at the salon, not posing in any way as to make any sexual implications at all is overly offensive, sexual in nature and violates their terms and conditions. Here are the pics in question:

Granted, the picture of Anastasia is pretty damn sexy, but still. I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t look at a fully clothed inflatable doll and immediately think “I’ve got to get me some of that.” Yes, they have openings for their mouths, but so does nearly every other person with a MySpace profile. Maybe MySpace lives in a world where every open mouth is waiting for a penis to be stuck in it, but for the rest of us I just don’t think that’s the case. Unless of course you live in West Hollywood, where you might find an exception to the rule. Hell, I don’t live in a world like that and I’m married to a retired adult film star. If I tried to put something in her mouth every time she opened it, I’d eventually end up with my penis being thrown out the window in a hot dog tray. So, I have to assume that the fact the dolls have mouths isn’t, in and of itself, sexually suggestive. I could cover their mouths with duct tape, but I’m sure MySpace would accuse us of promoting bondage.

What else could be so offensive as to ban the photos? Maybe Jessie? Technically she is a transexual…that’s just the way she was born. Came out of the box that way. We all thought “chicks with sticks” just meant she was a drummer…and by gosh, she does play the drums. Maybe MySpace discriminates against transexuals?

Maybe it is Greta. Greta has a lot of tattoos, and she plans to get more. Does MySpace automatically assume any female with a lot of tattoos is some kind of whore? Yes, the tattoos can be very sexy, but I don’t think that just having tattoos is sexually suggestive. Maybe MySpace discriminates against women with tattoos and thinks they are all a bunch of sluts or something?

I guess it could be Eve. Her last name is Zen, which means her initials are E.Z., is that enough to be sexually suggestive? She is wearing a Tiffany’s knecklace and bracelet. Does MySpace assume that any woman wearing Tiffany’s must have slept with someone to get their jewelry? Maybe she’s a very successful female and bought the items with her own money? I don’t think that is sexually suggestive.

Anastasia is a witch. Does MySpace assume that all Witches/ Wiccans must automatically ooze with the promise of mass ritualistic orgies. Okay, again, she does look pretty sexy in that picture, but there’s nothing there to imply a big old fashioned free for all orgy what-so-ever. Maybe MySpace discriminates against those with particular religious beliefs?

It is meant to be funny, and so far all of the responses we have received from the initial inflatable dolls as our T-Shirt models to the Fük Dahls band has been extremely favorable with tons of positive responses with people expressing they laughed hysterically and have received absolutely no comments that someone found any picture we posted sexually offensive.

On the flipside of that, though, are the things I do see on MySpace every day that would be deemed inappropriate for a 13 year old, but yet they let it slide en masse. I see video clips and pictures on profiles with nipples showing through shirts, women bent over in thongs such that you can tell what she ate for breakfast, I see graphics for alcoholic beverages which aren’t appropriate for 13 year olds. Just like a picture of a Heineken doesn’t mean you have to drink it or a picture of cannibis doesn’t mean you have to smoke it, a picture of a fully clothed inflatable doll doesn’t mean you have to poke it. There’s nothing more sexually suggestive than Jenna Jameson or Ron Jeremy, yet they are allowed to have MySpace pages and post pictures of themselves. And I don’t care what anybody says, there isn’t a person around that can look at Ron Jeremy and NOT think Porn. There’s just no way. Its not that you want to HAVE sex with him, it’s just freakin’ Ron Jeremy. Manson: Murder, Michael Jackson: Young Boys, Priests: Young Boys, Ron Jeremy: Porn. You can’t get more sexually suggestive than just saying “Ron Jeremy.”

Does a gun clearly represent murder? Does a bottle of whiskey clearly express an intent to drive drunk? Must all Muslims be terrorists? Must all inflatable objects in the shape of a human form be expressly for sexual intercourse? I say no. Maybe the people at MySpace do sleep with inflatable dolls, but if that is the case, should they really project their secret sexual inclinations upon the integrity of our band members?

If anybody can express exactly what aspects of these pictures are clearly sexually suggestive, please feel free to comment. Our dolls have never had sex. MySpace, on the other hand, provides a specific area for you to specify your sexual preference in your settings. If that isn’t sexually suggestive, I don’t know what is.