You did say anything!!!!

andyc209 · Post by **andyc209** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 1:00 am

Try this link boys!

It's not porn - but its damn near close!

Robbie · Post by **Robbie** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 3:02 am

Er....if thats not porn, next you'll be telling me its Mother Teresa in disguise, not quite what Lyndon had in mind :rolleyes:

Dave-T · Post by **Dave-T** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 8:48 am

it's porn.

andyc209 · Post by **andyc209** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 9:48 am

If you don't like then sorry!

Lyndon , please remove it, god I really thought at last we would have an area to have some fun, hey we can't all be happy!

Dave-T · Post by **Dave-T** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 9:56 am

I like it

, just that it may not be what Lyndon planned
Use the EDIT function and remove it if you want.

Erm · Post by **Erm** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 10:09 am

yeah BUT DO NOT OPEN IT IF YOU ARE AT WORK!!!!!!

col · Post by **col** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 10:13 am

Very pretty girl, is that porn? don't think so!

Robbie · Post by **Robbie** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 11:38 am

Dictionary definition of porn: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

I'd say that fits the definition unless your Mother Teresa.

Alex LS · Post by **Alex LS** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:17 pm

You'd have to be pretty much a monk to get sexually aroused by that (or a teenage boy).

I think 'titilation' is a more appropriate description, unless you're also going to class nudism as porn.

Robbie · Post by **Robbie** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:28 pm

Ah right so shes a nudist then is she? An I suppose whoever designed that wasn't trying to arouse anyones sexual interest?

I think not.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:37 pm

Whether you want to use the word "porn" or not, it is not appropriate for this forum. C'mon guys, use some sense...

Alex LS · Post by **Alex LS** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:41 pm

Like I said, you'd have to be really isolated to be aroused by that. At the end of the day, it's a highly subjective issue - my personal opinion is that particular item does not constitute pornography.

On a related note, did you know it is impossible for women to be charged with indecent exposure?

Robbie · Post by **Robbie** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:51 pm

Yep and impossible for women to be charged with rape, instead it comes under the classification of indescent assault .

col · Post by **col** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 1:17 pm

Like I said, you'd have to be really isolated to be aroused by that. At the end of the day, it's a highly subjective issue - my personal opinion is that particular item does not constitute pornography.

On a related note, did you know it is impossible for women to be charged with indecent exposure?

For once i agree with Alex

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 1:33 pm

Yep I agree with everything you've said. And I dont think it should be on here cos I dont think Lyndon would want it on his site. Still, he'll remove if if he wants.