Harry Krause wrote:
wrote:
JimH wrote:
.....Melanie Griffith http://www.hogrockcafe.com/melanie_griffith.htm or
Jennifer Love Hewitt http://www.hogrockcafe.com/jennifer_love_hewitt.htm ?


Hmmmmmmmm, indeed.

I thought you had an adult or teenaged daughter, but apparently I was
mistaken.

As an aside, wouldn't it be good form to let people know when you're
linking them to a soft porn site? Maybe "clits and tits" would be a
better title for the thread. :-)

Don't these peek-a-boos into the realms of pubescent fantasy often
result in
a barrage of aggravating spam and invites to hard core sites?



Geez, Chuck, you really are turning into a netcop, and that's not a
pretty picture. Do you really think that the naked or near-naked female
form is "soft porn?"

If so, I suggest you NOT click on this:

http://tinyurl.com/762w4


Ms. Griffith is nearly 50, and Ms. Hewitt is at least in her mid 20's,
hardly the stuff of pubescent fantasy, eh?


There are few things more beautiful in nature than the female human
body.
It's a good thing that at least the male half of humanity feels that
way, or we'd die out as a species pretty darn quickly.

I think that the exploitation of human beings is offensive, and that's
what makes a photo pornographic in my opinion. The *******s that run
these soft porn sites "hire" desperate young women to disrobe for a
rock of crack cocaine, and then sell the photos of these victimized
young women to equally desparate and sexually frustrated old men for
ridiculous amounts of money. Few people who care about social equity,
justice, and hope to provide a better world environment for young women
(and that group usually includes most people with a grown or growing
daughter) and who give any thought at all to the ramifications of this
"industry" will support it.

The site that we were sent to had a list of maybe a couple of hundred
pages where the titles suggest one can see a bunch of anonymous,
desperate young women, (maybe men too), being forced into degrading
acts and poses.

I thought you were probably too sophisticated to be fooled by a photo
sequence that begins with a legitimate picture of a well-known
celebrity and then switches to an anonymous double when the clothes
start coming off.

If either of these women wanted to take their clothes off for money,
they wouldn't need to resort to posting the pictures on a cheesy soft
porn site where a bunch of drooling old farts can get a free peek- and
the photography would be much, much, better.

A woman displaying her body spontaneously and naturally is very
alluring. A woman displaying her body in exchange for dope or almost no
money, while some greasy clown with a coke habit and who hasn't seen a
bar of soap in weeks tells her, "spread it with your fingers a little
more, baby, and hold that pose while we adjust the light" is not a
thing of beauty. It's one of the saddest aspects of humanity.

Besides, remember back in high school? Who were the guys out
fantasizing under the bleachers with Playboy magazine? As I recall, it
was almost always the poor deprived geeks who weren't getting any of
the real stuff after school or at least on the occasional Saturday
night. The more they talked, and the more they salivated over girlie
photos, the less they usually got. Its so darn easy to get a real
woman, why would anybody waste time with a fantasy?

And how am I a net cop? Did I tell JimH he shouldn't post that here?
No. While I did suggest it might be appropriate to warn people visiting
a boating newsgroup when he posts a link to a soft porn site, I
certainly wouldn't presume to demand that he include a warning. I
believe a warning would be appropriate, (might even result in a greater
number of visits to the site), and exercised my right to express that
opinion.

Oh, and the pubescent fantasy? That refers to the over-the-top reaction
from guys who are so thrilled to see a breast, or a vagina, that they
act like pubescent teenagers. Has nothing to do with the age of the
alleged models.