Some might find her butt a distraction, but no one mentioned her rather nice legs <VBG>
I reckon we can milk a bit more Paul :-) Dave (not helping at all) On 8/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Bob is right. But, on the other hand, the very fact that this tiny > heiny is a distraction may say something about the way we react to body > parts. It seems that if we were not programmed to react in a certain way to a > bent-over woman, it wouldn't distract??? If she were facing forward, the > composition would apparently be okay??? Anyway, we've probably milked this > for all it's worth. > Paul > > > > > Hah! Easily a third of the people posting here would love it > > > if you could put one of those TV "obscurers" such as a > > > rectangle of badly out-of-focus mottled gray, over the offending part. > > > > > > Gasp! > > > > I don't think so. Based on my reading of the thread, I'd say at most one > > person might have been offended in the way you describe. Everyone else who > > objects just thinks it detracts from the picture. > > > > I also think it detracts from the picture, which captures a nice moment, but > > I have no objection in principle to looking at a woman's nether regions. No > > sir. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Bob > > > >
