Re: Whose arse is it anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatulaGeekGirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Oh dear! You're right! What a contribution to society she has made, she deserves to be praised and admired because she doesn't mind throwing off her clothes and degrading herself for cheap entertainment.
I don't think she's trying to make a contribution to society. I think she's trying to be paid a shed load of money for a minimal input.
I don't think she deserves to be praised or admired either. It just is what it is. She gets photographed in poses which some people find arousing. She gets paid money, they get a cheap and sad ejaculatory opportunity.
Worse things happen. She could be making trainers for $1 (7p) a day in a sweatshop in Taiwan. I would conjecture that's more degrading.
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatulaGeekGirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
What do the woman wearing clothes show off?
If they are
actually wear clothes then not much.
Look busy. A model is a person who wears
clothes in an attempt to make the
clothes look good so people will by the
clothes. The main focus of her pictures are HER BODY. The underwear is in use only to cover up the parts of her that would otherwise need to be censored.
So modeling has to involve money from the onlooker?:huh:
So women in a Victoria's Secret catalog are models but Vida isn't?
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
Yes, busy, it does. That however seems a little off-topic to me. (mind you this whole debate is a little off-topic)
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatulaGeekGirl
Yes, busy, it does.
Bullshit. Whether or not a person is a model has nothing to do with intention.
A person *blankblank* their naked body in an art class is not a model according to your definition.
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
She's also trying to give lesbians a wide on :dabs:
Moist-on, surelement.
Hoi! Look, I've got two lesbians living next door to me and they call it a wide on.
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
tis a wide on....
:shifty:
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
My point is she should not be considered anything more than she is. Models at least have a little dignity (for a living clothes rack).
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Moist-on, surelement.
Hoi! Look, I've got two lesbians living next door to me and they call it a wide on.
I defer to your superior knowledge of lesbionic slang, based on geographical nearness and retract my previous.
I think I'll join the US Military, I think I could pull a Marine off.
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatulaGeekGirl
My point is she should not be considered anything more than she is. Models at least have a little dignity (for a living clothes rack).
How does the Victoria Secret model have more dignity?:blink:
Re: Whose arse is it anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatulaGeekGirl
Yes, busy, it does.
Bullshit. Whether or not a person is a model has nothing to do with intention.
A person *blankblank* their naked body in an art class is not a model according to your definition.
That's a different sort of model and what they do is providing contribution, they are the subjects of artwork. Art is respectable. Girls with fake tits in suggestive poses are giving men the chance for a wank. I suppose that's a contribution but it's not respectable.
