Those are your words, not mine. I have no idea what most of these women do with their bodies, certainly not whether they are "sluts". I do not assume because a woman was photographed in a sexual way, that she is automatically a "slut". All I know is that she was photographed. Any conclusion beyond that is hearsay. In regards to pictures of children being a mistake or not, that is why I pointed out that it was not meant in a bad way, so we agree that you meant nothing more than a sincere puzzle, and in fact i tried to solve it. What I am suggesting is that pictures of children together with pictures of women in this thread can be better served by starting a new thread where there could be no conflict with people that are offended by this. I realize that this is very difficult to do, since that means you have to decide what will or what will offend someone, but generally, as you have witnessed here, this is one of them.
Exactly. I can only speak for myself, but every single woman that I have posted here is not a "slut" and has never been in porn. They are all legitimate women who posed for the camera in a provocative manner - strictly within normally acceptable guidelines. Which attractive woman doesn't do so these days?
Those who are offended by the inclusion of simple snapshot of a celebrity when she was a young girl on this forum are seriously deranged. What has morality got to do with anything? No taboos have been violated, it is a goddam picture taken 50 years ago! If you are a christian evangelical then you need help, as most 'normal' people would agree, but if you have been completely warped by the media and it's persistant obesssion with child/ sexuality issues then I truly feel sorry for you. What the hell is going on with society when one cannot, as sane, mature adults we cannot distinguish between what is sexually stimulating and what is not. Most people can, those who are confused obviously cannot.
I totally agree with what you are saying. The term/notion used for such moral stances is fear based in nature. For some others it can be a paranoid social reflection of what others may think instead of really taking it for what it was ie a Guess who HEAD picture of a young girl nothing more , nothing less... Sure perhaps a little out of context here but it should definitely not be implied that the origional poster has some sort of implied bent towards some sexual perversion. This was insulting and uncalled for in my opinion. It may even have legal recourse. From a psychological point of view there is more material to be analysed from the reacting poster than there is from the actual poster of the pic... Best John
Thanks for your correction on the morality aspect. Your views are much clearer than mine, I shall digress here.