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 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You're right. "Voyeurism" implies sexual deviancy > and content. While some voyeuristic acts might > involve street photography, all street photography > is certainly not voyeurism. Of course, like many > words, voyeur has come to mean more than what it > once did. It's now frequenly used to describe anyone > who enjoys watching the activity of others, even > completely non-sexual situations. But that's a > distortion of the word's original meaning, and it > certainly retains negative connotations. Only a true > voyeur, with a perverted sense of what is erotic, > could possibly find any sexual content in this > photograph. To the normal, it is merely a shot of > three women. > Paul > > > > > > > > >> [Original Message] > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >> Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. > That what it's all about > > >-- > > >> catching people unaware. > > > > Except that voyeurism has a sexual connection. > Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't > > get off to snapping people unaware. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > > > > > ___/\__ > > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > > _____________________________ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
