I didn't say that - didn't use the word "objectionable." I said it was "offensive from my POV of composition." IOW, I found the composition to be poor. That's pretty far from objecting to the prurient interest of the photo or composition. Anyway, even if someone found the photo objectionable, that wouldn't mean that it was objectionable or offensive ~because of~ "prurient interest." I agree that some people here are easily offended by images that even reference the human form or the birthing process.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The word "objectionable" was used in your original post, and I believe it was repeated by at least one other. A composition may be disliked, but only its content could be deemed "objectionable." I merely wanted to know what was objectionable, the woman's posterior or the pregnancy. Previous experiences here tell me that some people are very easily offended by any image that even vaguely references the human form or the birthing process. > > > > I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an "object of > > prurient interest." Perhaps I missed it. Can you show me where that was > > said. You seem to be putting your own spin on the comments made by others. > > Most comments seem to indicate that the composition is poor - you even said > > "It's not a particularly artful composition..." > > > > Shel > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Paul Stenquist > > > > >To me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. > > > And if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more > > > pleasant. > > > >
