Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History

> And again, you act like they took her from an a cup to a d.

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

**they are certainly implying it.

> Had you not seen the other imagine no one would have cared,

I'm not sure how this matters.

**because the modification was so minor I contend it added nothing sexual.

> it was not blatantly sexual.

Again, that's not relevant. It was *inherently* sexual, and the question is
whether or not that's ok.

**why?  Because it was her boob?  What about the hair and facial edits?  Her
abdomen?  The glow?  All of these was there.  We only seem to care about the
boob.


I mean, look, if you were simply saying, "Yeah, they made the pic a little
sexier, and I have no problem with that," that would be one thing. The head
scratcher is this, "Maybe they didn't do anything at all! If they did, it wasn't
much! You can't see her nipples, what are you bitching about?" argument.

***hmmm, I check and so far you win for the being the first to mention nipples.
I see where your mind is.

***Seriously, no one has made any of those arguments.

***let me repeat.  I don’t find the breast edit inherently sexier.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot