Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History

 
>**because the modification was so minor I contend it added nothing sexual.<
 
Then why modify it at all?  
Frankly her original image was flat and unappealing.  The newer one made her feminine and more realistic.
 

>**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.<
 
What planet are you living on?  Are you denying that the breasts of the human female are sexual organs/objects of sexual desire?



**my point made, thank you.  
 

>***hmmm, I check and so far you win for the being the first to mention nipples.
I see where your mind is.<
 
WTF?
 
**  and the next paragraph saying “seriously” was not a clue?  
 
>***Seriously, no one has made any of those arguments.
***let me repeat.  I don’t find the breast edit inherently sexier.<
 
Why enhance the bust size of a child, (the character is a child), at all?  Pleasend don't respond "they didn't" because that is just being absurd, not to mention repetitive and isn't relevant to the argument.  
 
**as I have noted, the edit was true to her actual shape and size.  So I find it laughable to say it was increased.

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