Jack Davis Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:14:30 -0700 > >Never would have guessed there would be such >preoccupation with a pair of shorts. Especially this >semi-baggy, non-defining example. Is it the fact that >we all know what is under there? <snicker> >The wearer's position at this moment, while >incidental, is obviously a GREAT distraction to many. >Too bad. > >Jack
It surprises me that anyone would either expect or even simply anticipate no reaction to the center of the photograph. Instead we argue that the distraction, for whatever reason, shouldn't be a distraction. It's a clear piece of duplicity that we act like it's not there. My argument was one of taste rather than the morality of it. Yes, voyeurism does apply to some degree. Bum, smirk, baby, & all. Collin -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
