Cameon Diaz' $3.3 million 19 year old topless photos

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>These are reportedly the photographs that are now the focus of the
>lawsuit between her and the photographer who took them. I personally
>don't think they're worth a second look let alone $3.3 million.


Is 19 years too old for you?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >These are reportedly the photographs that are now the focus of the
>> >lawsuit between her and the photographer who took them. I personally
>> >don't think they're worth a second look let alone $3.3 million.
>>
>>
>> Is 19 years too old for you?
>
>It's not, but I find it quite vulgar that she's wearing a "thong", now
>an artifact of the crude culture of hip-hop. Years ago it used to be
>called a G-string, and I never was fond of it back then; I found it
>aesthetically tasteless. Any girl who wears a "thong", especially those
>visible in public, is instantly dismissed from my interest. So much so
>that I remember being put off affectionate foreplay with a girl on
>seeing when she undressed that she wore one.
>
>I think it distorts the natural form. It's functionally understandable
>within the context of a traditional culture such as native and tribal
>communities, as panties may be difficult to make, and perhaps in circus
>and dancing professions where it indicates exoticism, but I can't
>tolerate it elsewhere. The only situation where I looked at it with
>more than approval was a young English lady, whose age I would say late
>twenties or early thirties, blonde and fair, very posh and refined, who
>discretely wore a Black thong under a Gray wool business suit. I
>thought it was a nice touch of absurdity.


You are very, very sick.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122642318.515153.126150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> It's not, but I find it quite vulgar that she's wearing a "thong", now
> an artifact of the crude culture of hip-hop. Years ago it used to be
> called a G-string, and I never was fond of it back then; I found it
> aesthetically tasteless. Any girl who wears a "thong", especially those
> visible in public, is instantly dismissed from my interest.

> So much so
> that I remember being put off affectionate foreplay with a girl on
> seeing when she undressed that she wore one.
>
> I think it distorts the natural form. It's functionally understandable
> within the context of a traditional culture such as native and tribal
> communities, as panties may be difficult to make, and perhaps in circus
> and dancing professions where it indicates exoticism, but I can't
> tolerate it elsewhere. The only situation where I looked at it with
> more than approval was a young English lady, whose age I would say late
> twenties or early thirties, blonde and fair, very posh and refined, who
> discretely wore a Black thong under a Gray wool business suit. I
> thought it was a nice touch of absurdity.

You're all alone...aren't you? And wearing a thong too.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122601773.325549.46030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> These are reportedly the photographs that are now the focus of the
> lawsuit between her and the photographer who took them. I personally
> don't think they're worth a second look let alone $3.3 million.

I agree with you. Very pedestrian indeed. She needs some work on her schnoz
too.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> These are reportedly the photographs that are now the focus of the
> lawsuit between her and the photographer who took them. I personally
> don't think they're worth a second look let alone $3.3 million. He
> seems to be facing 6 years in jail.
>
> (discretion: topless photos! duh!)
>
> http://www.blogant.com/2005/07/cam [...] -tits.html
> (click the link in the blog post)
>


Wait... are you actually expecting me to click a mouse button to see
something I already see every day with no effort whatsoever? Her tits
are no different from all the others I've seen hanging around the pool.
What's the point of just looking at tits? OTOH, if there was some
offer to actually *do* something with those tits, then that's another
deal. But, sans an overt offer to do anything besides look, forget it,
I have more efficient ways to waste my time.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.07.30.06.00.10.110000@empirerods.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:05:18 -0700, casioculture wrote:
>
>>> Is 19 years too old for you?
>>
>> It's not, but I find it quite vulgar that she's wearing a "thong", now an
>> artifact of the crude culture of hip-hop. Years ago it used to be called
>> a
>> G-string, and I never was fond of it back then; I found it aesthetically
>> tasteless. Any girl who wears a "thong", especially those visible in
>> public, is instantly dismissed from my interest. So much so that I
>> remember being put off affectionate foreplay with a girl on seeing when
>> she undressed that she wore one.
>>
>> I think it distorts the natural form. It's functionally understandable
>> within the context of a traditional culture such as native and tribal
>> communities, as panties may be difficult to make, and perhaps in circus
>> and dancing professions where it indicates exoticism, but I can't
>> tolerate
>> it elsewhere. The only situation where I looked at it with more than
>> approval was a young English lady, whose age I would say late twenties or
>> early thirties, blonde and fair, very posh and refined, who discretely
>> wore a Black thong under a Gray wool business suit. I thought it was a
>> nice touch of absurdity.
>
> This is the most inane thing I have ever read.
>
> G-strings are groovy.

I'm with you, Dallas. I'm not sure how anything that exposes so much of the
form could be said to distort it.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:

> Wait... are you actually expecting me to click a mouse button to see
> something I already see every day with no effort whatsoever? Her tits
> are no different from all the others I've seen hanging around the pool.
> What's the point of just looking at tits?

> I have more efficient ways to waste my time.

How very, very sad. It certainly took far more effort to write your response than to
have clicked on the link. If I ever get tired of looking at tits I hope somebody will
have the decency to take me out back and shoot me.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.07.30.06.00.10.110000@empirerods.com...
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:05:18 -0700, casioculture wrote:
> >
> >>> Is 19 years too old for you?
> >>
> >> It's not, but I find it quite vulgar that she's wearing a "thong", now an
> >> artifact of the crude culture of hip-hop. Years ago it used to be called
> >> a
> >> G-string, and I never was fond of it back then; I found it aesthetically
> >> tasteless. Any girl who wears a "thong", especially those visible in
> >> public, is instantly dismissed from my interest. So much so that I
> >> remember being put off affectionate foreplay with a girl on seeing when
> >> she undressed that she wore one.
> >>
> >> I think it distorts the natural form. It's functionally understandable
> >> within the context of a traditional culture such as native and tribal
> >> communities, as panties may be difficult to make, and perhaps in circus
> >> and dancing professions where it indicates exoticism, but I can't
> >> tolerate
> >> it elsewhere. The only situation where I looked at it with more than
> >> approval was a young English lady, whose age I would say late twenties or
> >> early thirties, blonde and fair, very posh and refined, who discretely
> >> wore a Black thong under a Gray wool business suit. I thought it was a
> >> nice touch of absurdity.
> >
> > This is the most inane thing I have ever read.
> >
> > G-strings are groovy.
>
> I'm with you, Dallas. I'm not sure how anything that exposes so much of the
> form could be said to distort it.

I don't agree with the idea that the more a thing exposes then it must
readily be better - to me it's a question of what shape a thing has and
how that affects the perception of the natural form. I much prefer full
nudity to a g-string, and I much prefer panties to a G-string. I could
explain to you why I think a g-string is compositionally ugly, but I'm
not sure it's worth the attempt.



>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122759131.765716.77300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
>> newsan.2005.07.30.06.00.10.110000@empirerods.com...
>> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:05:18 -0700, casioculture wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Is 19 years too old for you?
>> >>
>> >> It's not, but I find it quite vulgar that she's wearing a "thong", now
>> >> an
>> >> artifact of the crude culture of hip-hop. Years ago it used to be
>> >> called
>> >> a
>> >> G-string, and I never was fond of it back then; I found it
>> >> aesthetically
>> >> tasteless. Any girl who wears a "thong", especially those visible in
>> >> public, is instantly dismissed from my interest. So much so that I
>> >> remember being put off affectionate foreplay with a girl on seeing
>> >> when
>> >> she undressed that she wore one.
>> >>
>> >> I think it distorts the natural form. It's functionally understandable
>> >> within the context of a traditional culture such as native and tribal
>> >> communities, as panties may be difficult to make, and perhaps in
>> >> circus
>> >> and dancing professions where it indicates exoticism, but I can't
>> >> tolerate
>> >> it elsewhere. The only situation where I looked at it with more than
>> >> approval was a young English lady, whose age I would say late twenties
>> >> or
>> >> early thirties, blonde and fair, very posh and refined, who discretely
>> >> wore a Black thong under a Gray wool business suit. I thought it was a
>> >> nice touch of absurdity.
>> >
>> > This is the most inane thing I have ever read.
>> >
>> > G-strings are groovy.
>>
>> I'm with you, Dallas. I'm not sure how anything that exposes so much of
>> the
>> form could be said to distort it.
>
> I don't agree with the idea that the more a thing exposes then it must
> readily be better - to me it's a question of what shape a thing has and
> how that affects the perception of the natural form. I much prefer full
> nudity to a g-string, and I much prefer panties to a G-string. I could
> explain to you why I think a g-string is compositionally ugly, but I'm
> not sure it's worth the attempt.
>
Probably not, since 'tis a matter of opinion. I can readily concede that a
g-string/thong would be compositionally ugly when compared to full nudity,
but the extra material involved on full panties (and I'm not getting into a
comparison between bikini and granny panties) would, with the emphasis on
"in my opinion" add a variable that may, or may not, enhance the aesthetics
involved. ;-) (Please not winking smiley, before replying...)
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
news:8C2He.67018$Pf3.24037@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:nhLGe.22764$HV1.1723@fed1read07...
>> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:nbLGe.56998$Pf3.44052@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I remember a story labelling her as a right bitch. The reason? A dying
>>> 15 year olds last wish was for her to give him a blow job. She didn't
>>> respond. Damn if americans didn't exist someone would have to invent
>>> them.
>>>
>> You mean kind of like what was once said about God?
>
> no in the kind of sense that you can look and laugh like you do to the
> fatman, "see johnny if i let you eat nothing but sweets and chocolate
> you'd end up looking like him, now quit moaning and eat your dinner"
>
> its a case of "firearms, look what happened when the americans got to
> carry them, even the police need to use them and gun crime and violent
> crime are higher"
>
> When a general vote was cast we voted against our 'bobbies' carrying guns
> full time.
>
Good thing, too, seeing about that poor guy on your underground...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:vM2dnaN-lvYqenHfRVn-ow@speakeasy.net...
> Not to get too technical here but I believe the modern intent of a thong
> is to avoid panty lines across the middle of the cheeks... which is a nice
> compositional improvement with clothes on or not. Historically I think
> g-strings were mostly for strip club dancers which isn't very flattering
> IMO.

That's why most of the women I know wear them...aside from the strippers, I
mean...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7a9He.23080$HV1.22017@fed1read07...
> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2He.67018$Pf3.24037@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:nhLGe.22764$HV1.1723@fed1read07...
> >> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nbLGe.56998$Pf3.44052@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>
[SNIP]
> >
> > When a general vote was cast we voted against
> > our 'bobbies' carrying guns full time.
> >
> Good thing, too, seeing about that poor guy on your
> underground...
>

Like this would never have happened in the US, you mean?

;-)


Peter

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1122838347.29556.0@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:7a9He.23080$HV1.22017@fed1read07...
>> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:8C2He.67018$Pf3.24037@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >
>> > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:nhLGe.22764$HV1.1723@fed1read07...
>> >> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:nbLGe.56998$Pf3.44052@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >>>
> [SNIP]
>> >
>> > When a general vote was cast we voted against
>> > our 'bobbies' carrying guns full time.
>> >
>> Good thing, too, seeing about that poor guy on your
>> underground...
>>
>
> Like this would never have happened in the US, you mean?
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Peter
>
>
Happens all the time, but we don't have a choice about whether the lawmen
carry guns. Something about that old, wild West outlook on life, probably.
There was a certain logic to the idea that if the criminals didn't have to
worry about being shot by the police, they, in turn, might not be so prone
to violence, themselves. It's a whole new world out there, and different
rules. Your (I'm assuming you're a Brit) Bobbies aren't as practiced as our
guys are at making decisions like that, and our guys make plenty of
mistakes, as it is...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
> Not to get too technical here but I believe the modern intent of a thong
> is to avoid panty lines across the middle of the cheeks... which is a
> nice compositional improvement with clothes on or not. Historically I
> think g-strings were mostly for strip club dancers which isn't very
> flattering IMO.

Well, for situations such as tribal societies they are there probably
due to technical limitation in them being easier to make than panties.
In circus it was perhaps a reference to traditional societies and
exoticism. In strip clubs it probably is due to the idea that the more
exposed the better, which is a commercial concern or catering for a low
culture clientele. For ordinary women it was to avoid the panty lines
across the middle of the cheeks, which for some types of clothing I
find an acceptable usage, though in such case and generally speaking I
wouldn't want to see a g-string or a thong any more than i want to see
a shoulder pad or a sanitary towel.

Now as for the panties/bikini I personally find it more appealing than
a g-string/thong. Apart from the vulgarity of the thong culture and its
associations, I think the geometric triangular shape of the panties or
bikini adds beautiful emphasis to the natural curves of the female
through contrast of shapes. Remember that square/circle/triangle you
see used in drawing tuition if you had studied it seriously? Da Vinci
used a similar thing when he placed a man in a circle/square. Well you
get the idea.

Additionally, those panty lines act as "leading lines"; they lead the
eyes, and in doing so, apart from what I described just above, also add
visual emphasis through overlap to perhaps part of what Anais Nin meant
when she described "the only wrinkles known to please". Panties/bikini
hug the butt, and flatteringly so.

G-string and thongs are ugly both in their ugly shape, and their
distraction - they serve neither emphasis through contrast of shapes,
nor emphasis through leading lines. If anything, I find they lead the
eyes out of the female hips and into the lower (or even mid!) back, or
even worse, such as in the case of Cameron Diaz here, and do look at
her pictures linked above, they lead the eyes away from the butt to
start with. Look at the picture in the lower right corner for example
and you'll find that the g-string shape is on her lower back, not her
butt. They also serve an unnatural segmentation that I find somewhat
anatomically grotesque; part of this, though not all of it, is that the
muscles just above the iliac crest, that in overweight people would
become love handles, would rightly belong more to the waist not the
butt, but if you look at her pics, you'll see that the thong segments
it with the butt.

I could go on and on about this, but I think I've said enough on why I
feel such distaste for thongs; apart from vulgar culture,
compositionally, they distort and distract. Nudity would have no such
problems. Panties/bikini on the other hand compliments and emphasises
the natural form.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
>
>
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Wait... are you actually expecting me to click a mouse button to see
>> something I already see every day with no effort whatsoever? Her tits
>> are no different from all the others I've seen hanging around the
>> pool. What's the point of just looking at tits?
>
>
>> I have more efficient ways to waste my time.
>
>
> How very, very sad. It certainly took far more effort to write your
> response than to have clicked on the link.

I suppose this would be true if one measures one's effort with a stop
watch. I don't. I measure the value of doing something by the
excpected accomplishment, assuming a successful outcome. As a result,
doing something constructive with my idle time is considered relatively
effortless, while doing something which wastes my idle time is pointless.

> If I ever get tired of
> looking at tits I hope somebody will have the decency to take me out
> back and shoot me.
>

I never said I was "tired" of looking, I simply meant that I don't need
to make an effort to see as many tits as I want because they're so
prevalent in my day-to-day life. As a consequence, I won't click on a
link offered for the sole purpose of soliciting someone's prurient
interest. Again, this is not to say I don't have a pruient interest, I
do, I just don't need to expend any effort to exercise it. I realize
this attitude may appear peculiar to those that assume all men react the
same way when presented with similar visual opportunities, and when that
presumtion is made, they're wrong if they include me within in their
presumptive exercise.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> > Jer wrote:
> >
> >>casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>These are reportedly the photographs that are now the focus of the
> >>>lawsuit between her and the photographer who took them. I personally
> >>>don't think they're worth a second look let alone $3.3 million. He
> >>>seems to be facing 6 years in jail.
> >>>
> >>>(discretion: topless photos! duh!)
> >>>
> >>>http://www.blogant.com/2005/07/cameron-diazs-33-million-tits.html
> >>>(click the link in the blog post)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Wait... are you actually expecting me to click a mouse button to see
> >>something I already see every day with no effort whatsoever? Her tits
> >>are no different from all the others I've seen hanging around the pool.
> >> What's the point of just looking at tits? OTOH, if there was some
> >>offer to actually *do* something with those tits, then that's another
> >>deal. But, sans an overt offer to do anything besides look, forget it,
> >>I have more efficient ways to waste my time.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I really had no particular expectations at all regarding what you might
> > do! Just who talked about tits?!?!
>
> You did. Your URL link included the 'boob' verbiage, which in
> Americana, it synonymous with tits.

It's not my blog so it's not my "URL link", though if your post was
addressed to the blog author, then I may have replied to it mistakenly.


>
> > This is a photography group and I
> > posted about "the photographs" that were lately in the news.
>
> Frankly, this is the first I've heard about it, but the fact that the
> aformentioned young lady has tits (or boobs in your case) is not news,
> nor is the fact that someone snapped a few photos while they were
> exposed long enough to press a little button. The monetary value of the
> photos or their supposed use as referenced in your subject line is also
> patently absurd, as are most issues relevant to the fashion industry, IMO.

It's been in the news for a while. I personally don't care much about
"celebrities" but just passed it on in case someone was curious. My
subject line was essentially a description of the content of the
original post (and is essentially a rephrasing of the blog post), so
when people decide if they want to click on the thread they know what
it's about and can stay away if they wish - I'm often annoyed by
subject lines that don't adequately describe what they lead to so I
take care not to do same. Cameron Diaz surely had many, many photos of
her, so the "$3.3 million 19 year old topless" adjectives were there to
clarify which ones were at issue.

Regards :-)

>
> > Any
> > description of their content in my post served simply for reference and
> > discretion.
> >
>
> And I thank you for your discretion.
>
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'