A sad note

[mysterygal]

Well, the proof is, ask any guy on what they think is a sexy woman and 9 out of 10 is the one's where they have to use their imaginations...it's the unwrapping of the present that's exciting!

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Sorry MysteryGal, not personal, but the juxtaposition of your innuendu of your slinky,sexy avatar side by side with you prudish, protestant protestations makes my point for me.

Eh...one can be publicly sexy yet prudish and Protestant.

 

[griffer]

Eh...one can be publicly sexy yet prudish and Protestant.

Yes, and one can also be a hypocrite.

EDIT: Not calling anyone a hypocrite, per se. Only pointing out the underlying contradictions of our society, MysteryGal post, not her personally, was just an example of those contradictions.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

ORLY?

Did you read my post on the previous page??

Oy vey. She's covered up, more than what you'd find on a beach.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Yes, and one can also be a hypocrite.

My point is that it is not hypocritical to like to dress "sexily" and yet, not live a porn life or whatever it is you are suggesting.

 

[mysterygal]

So I"m a hyprocrite now huh?
If other's think this avatar is over-sexual, I will gladly change it.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

So I"m a hyprocrite now huh?
If other's think this avatar is over-sexual, I will gladly change it.

I say leave it! This from a proud prude.

 

[griffer]

My point is that it is not hypocritical to like to dress "sexily" and yet, not live a porn life or whatever it is you are suggesting.

WHAT? Did you READ what I was talking about? Did you actually think i was advocating a PORN life? What is that anyway?

In case you missed it:

Not calling anyone a hypocrite, per se. Only pointing out the underlying contradictions of our society, MysteryGal's post, not her personally, was just an example of those contradictions..

Jeewhiz.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

WHAT? Did you READ what I was talking about? Did you actually think i was advocating a PORN life? What the hell is that anyway?

In case you missed it:



Jeewhiz.

Well, you did edit your post after I replied, but to be honest, I have no idea what you are getting at other than I felt like mysterygal had been atacked personally.

 

[griffer]

Well, you did edit your post after I replied, but to be honest, I have no idea what you are getting at other than I felt like mysterygal had been atacked personally.

Clearly, you do not have any idea what I am talking about. The edit was made while you were posting, I didn't even see your reply but anticipated mis-reading of my post.

But no, MysteryGal was not being attacked. Her post was used as an example. An illustration.

Please, re-read the thread. I feel I have made myself very clear.

But this will not end well since the wagons have already circled, defenses are up.

Trust me it wasn't personal, but for all the noise it sure does prove how sensitive we Americans can be when it comes to self examination and all things sexual.

 

[Feraud]

People, go back and thoroughly read and try to understand the posts before getting offended.
There are intelligent people that post replies that go flying over our heads as we take things personally.
Read the posts and consider if there is a point or not.
Rule #1, post not in haste.

 

[mysterygal]

I'm really trying not to get defensive here, and trying to understand where your coming from...with that said, I take a lot of thought in what I believe and have definete boundaries for myself/ lines that are not crossed, I can still be sexy,opinionated and yet have good morals. Not to get YOU defensive, but,being a bit prudish doesn't mean I have to wear turtle neck sweaters and cover myself entirely....now, are you meaning this is how our culture sees this?

 

[jamespowers]

Debate the subject not the people posting should be more like it. Scantily clad is just that. I see no examples of that here---avatars and all. I can see much worse by simply passing by the local high school at lunch.
We are talking way low hung jeans, bare midriffs and halter tops that are backless with plunging necklines. I think that is how far we go away from dignity and modesty---to define terms here. Sexy can involve clothes that fit not necessarily as little as possible. That is more street walker faire. :eusa_doh: Thigh high boots anyone.

Regards,

J

 

[PrettySquareGal]

"Sorry MysteryGal, not personal, but the juxtaposition of your innuendu of your slinky,sexy avatar side by side with you prudish, protestant protestations makes my point for me.

'We' as a collective results in a society of hypopcrites."

If that had been directed at me I would feel like I was being called a hypocrite. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped in. I know mysterygal can defend herself, if she feels she has been slighted.

 

[mysterygal]

If that had been directed at me I would feel like I was being called a hypocrite. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped in. I know mysterygal can defend herself, if she feels she has been slighted.

Believe me, square gal, I was glad you did defend me! thanks

 

[reetpleat]

Well, as far as mysterygals pic, no one is saying she is a hipocrit and her point was that one can be sexy or sensual without baring all, which she illustrates well.

But there is no denying that sex sells, including our precious golden age. They were quite scandelous in their way. Twenties were about petting parties and rumble seats. The movies were built on sexuality. The vamps and femme fatales. Tame by our standards, but selling sex none the less.

Mysterygals pose is I would assume an homage to the golden era starlets. it is tasteful and fun. Frankly such things, including pin ups are kind of quant by our standards. I am sure preachers railed against the decadence, sexual immorality of the moving pictures and immorality of the devils music (black music that is) and I am sure many insisted that civilization had gone to hell and the end times were near.

Clara Bow or Marilyn Monroe were the equivilant of what we are seeing now at a britney spears concert or madonna.

I suppose our kids will laugh at how prudish our generation was, or look back wistfully.

those damn kids today.

 

[jamespowers]

"Sorry MysteryGal, not personal, but the juxtaposition of your innuendu of your slinky,sexy avatar side by side with you prudish, protestant protestations makes my point for me.

'We' as a collective results in a society of hypopcrites."

If that had been directed at me I would feel like I was being called a hypocrite. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped in. I know mysterygal can defend herself, if she feels she has been slighted.

Yep, sounds a little off to me.
I see no points being made there. It actually proves that you don't have to be nearly naked to make an impression. Think Jane Russell and Betty Grable not Marilyn Chambers. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Brian Sheridan]

In our vernacular, Mysterygal you look like the cat's pajamas! Va-Va-Va-VOOM! Keep up the great work.

BRS

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Yep, sounds a little off to me.
I see no points being made there. It actually proves that you don't have to be nearly naked to make an impression. Think Jane Russell and Betty Grable not Marilyn Chambers. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

So where's YOUR sexy avatar???

 

[Feraud]

Clara Bow or Marilyn Monroe were the equivilant of what we are seeing now at a britney spears concert or madonna.

I suppose our kids will laugh at how prudish our generation was, or look back wistfully.

those damn kids today.

You are absolutely correct.

The question is, what yardstick to we use to measure smut, filth, or however one choose to define it?
Not everyone agrees to use a 1940's sensibility to judge sexually explicit photos or intentions.
Most of us here are more than happy to say the likes of Britney Spear or Madonna are nasty tramps with their sexuality on display.
Year 2000 sexuality is wrong but 1940's sexuality is not? How does one justify that?
I guess the old saying, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.." does not apply?
If life is not black and white then we have no reason at all to complain about the lowering of today's standards. It can be rationalized in the context of it's time.
For your consideration..