From: ROCxolan@t-online.de   
      
   Morgoth's Curse wrote:   
   > 	I am looking at my copy of Lucy's STUFF pictorial now.  She is   
   > sprawled on her back wearing only a pair of panties, a transparent   
   > shirt and a smile.  (Her nipples are just barely concealed.)  The   
   > subliminal message is obvious:  "Come and get it, big boy!"  How is   
   > that any less provocative than, say, a glimpse of Lucy clitoris while   
   > she straddles an actor in "Spartacus"?  Why is it acceptable to expose   
   > 95% of her body, but not the remaining 5%?  One hundred years ago no   
   > woman would have dreamed of exposing her navel in public.  Today a   
   > woman who covers her navel is practically a freak.  What dictates what   
   > is "sexy" and what is "normal?"   
      
   Society, obviously. Effectively, upbringing.   
      
   I didn't make the rules. But people simply have a problem exposing their   
   primary sexual characteristics. And the boundary between softcore porn   
   and hardcore porn is defined that way *legally.   
      
   Myself, I've always considered the STUFF pictures harmless. But then I'm   
   European, so I have different attitudes towards nudity and sex anyway.   
      
   Personally, I couldn't care less about what other people do as long as   
   they don't bother me. And nudity doesn't bother me. If people want to   
   run around nude all day long, I won't stop them. But if they feel   
   uncomfortable exposing certain parts of their body, small as they may be   
   (reminds me of those tribes that will feel naked without their penis   
   sheath or something similarly tiny, but not with it - who am I to tell   
   them that they're being silly? It's their freaking culture), that's OK.   
      
   --   
      
   Florian   
   GGGHD, MWFA, HCNB   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)