In response to georom4's comment:

 

amazing women - but they are also made up/photoshopped as well...just give me a nice woman in her 40s, in decent shape, that watches the ball game with me....

 

 

Here you go.

In response to softlaw2's comment:

 

So, what is absurd is to think that the models are any more responsible than the men (and women) who actually are the driving force behind this cash cow

What's absurd is even suggesting that these posing women aren't responsible for selling themselves as sexual objects. How much some one else makes off their decision is irrelevant. No women, no commercial sexual objectification. You need to thank them for their decisions, as you put money, directly or indirectly, into their pockets. And for those who supplied the capital, hardware and media distribution platform, that's supply and demand. There are lot of young women looking to sell themselves as sexual objects, so the media has a buyer's market where a few thousand dollars is enough to get enough women to consent to sell themselves as sexual objects. That doesn't change the responsiblity for their decisions, at all! 

 

 

 

No, of course it doesn't.  But, as usual, you are making straw man arguements.  I only said that you can't forget to judge the p.i.m.p and the john when judging the prostitute. **

 

** This is a separate theoretical arguement from the arguement in which my stance is that it is a horrible twisted moral-trojan-horse to state that there is 'responsibility' that must be taken for posing in naked pictures.  

This is akin to the arguement that a woman who dresses sexy is asking to be raped.  No.  Note to men:  despite what you have been taught in our gender-skewed culture, you CAN keep it in your pants, and you don't HAVE to be a slave to your base carnal instincts.

No, of course it doesn't.  But, as usual, you are making straw man arguements.  I only said that you can't forget to judge the p.i.m.p and the john when judging the prostitute. **

 You just made the only staw man argument. "Pimps and johns" don't have anything to do with women agreeing to take thousands of dollars to sell their sexual images as intellecutal property in commerce.

** This is a separate theoretical arguement from the arguement in which my stance is that it is a horrible twisted moral-trojan-horse to state that there is 'responsibility' that must be taken for posing in naked pictures

 

The horrible twist is using hyberbole "naked pictures" and "pimps and johns" with regard to women taking responsiiblity for selling images of women as sexual objects in commerce.

  

This is akin to the arguement that a woman who dresses sexy is asking to be raped.  No.  Note to men:  despite what you have been taught in our gender-skewed culture, you CAN keep it in your pants, and you don't HAVE to be a slave to your base carnal instincts.

No, this is not "akin to the argument than a woman who dresses "sexy" or similar to a New York street prostitute "is aking to be raped". A more accurate analogy would be a woman who dresses sexy and says yes, or no, when a man asks if she will accept a thousand dollars to join him in a hotel room.

The culture, today, is gender confused, not "gender skewed". Your comments reflect the culture that refuses to place responsiblity with individual decison makers. A culture that sells women as commercial sexual objects doesn't do so because of slavery. It exists because of individual women saying one word: "yes". 

In response to georom4's comment:

 amazing women - but they are also made up/photoshopped as well...just give me a nice woman in her 40s, in decent shape, that watches the ball game with me....

 Here you go.

 

 

Keep an open mind with regards to considering your sexual objects.

The levity evokes the human emotion of laughter, even if it's not appropriate;)

Fat is beautiful, evern if Mrs. Obama says the feds need to issue regulations to prevent it.

In response to softlaw2's comment:
[QUOTE]

No, of course it doesn't.  But, as usual, you are making straw man arguements.  I only said that you can't forget to judge the p.i.m.p and the john when judging the prostitute. **

 You just made the only staw man argument. "Pimps and johns" don't have anything to do with women agreeing to take thousands of dollars to sell their sexual images as intellecutal property in commerce.

Intellectual Property and commerce analogy:  A band makes money from producing hit record.  Hit record recording and distribution made possible by record company who will make signifcantly more off it than artist, and a consumer population demanding this product.

Same.  Exact.  Thing.

** This is a separate theoretical arguement from the arguement in which my stance is that it is a horrible twisted moral-trojan-horse to state that there is 'responsibility' that must be taken for posing in naked pictures

 

The horrible twist is using hyberbole "naked pictures" and "pimps and johns" with regard to women taking responsiiblity for selling images of women as sexual objects in commerce.

OK, if "naked pictures" is hyperbole, then so is your "selling sex" notion.

  

This is akin to the arguement that a woman who dresses sexy is asking to be raped.  No.  Note to men:  despite what you have been taught in our gender-skewed culture, you CAN keep it in your pants, and you don't HAVE to be a slave to your base carnal instincts.

No, this is not "akin to the argument than a woman who dresses "sexy" or similar to a New York street prostitute "is aking to be raped". A more accurate analogy would be a woman who dresses sexy and says yes, or no, when a man asks if she will accept a thousand dollars to join him in a hotel room.

OK, let me get this straight.  You criticize my statements about taking "naked pictures" and "pimps and Johns" as hyperbole ... but you then apply the 'more accurate analogy' of taking these pics to accepting a thousand dollars to join a man in a hotel room?  Forgive if i am being confused, but you just brought the pimps and johns into the equation in a much more direct way than i did.

The culture, today, is gender confused, not "gender skewed". Your comments reflect the culture that refuses to place responsiblity with individual decison makers. A culture that sells women as commercial sexual objects doesn't do so because of slavery. It exists because of individual women saying one word: "yes". 

OK.  We, as usual, will just have to leave it at I say potato and you say po-tah-to.  I think it is both very foolish and very dangerous to look at the commercialization of female sexuality as the result of womens willingness to do so.  This viewpoint is at the heart of Rape Culture, and most certainly this view is "gender skewed".  We are all responsible for the commercialization of female sexuality.  

A culture that sells women as commercial sexual objects doesn't do so because of slavery. It exists because of individual women saying one word: "yes". 

 

actually it exists because there is a market for it, someone pays these women to pose. If they didn't approach them and offer money to mose in their magazines then it wouldn't exist.

i don't understand why this is an issue anyway, who cares if they are making money? especially if they are doing it in a legal fashion. unless your of the mindset that women should be housewives and not a part of the workforce (i wouldnt put it past you softy)

There is market for LSD. A "market" has nothing to do with individual decisions to sell in a particular market.

 

In response to softlaw2's comment:

Well, the market certainly does have something to do with the decision to sell a product.

But that is beside the point.

The point is, even if sales existed in this mythical vacuum that excludes the demand for a product, you are not pin-pointing correctly who the sellers are.  Yes, a part of the sales team is the model (or, as you would refer to her as, prostitute), but she is intrinsically part of the magazine (pimp) in which she is posing.  

In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

This fine lady can help the Red Sox recruit Verlander (when he becomes a free agent) to Boston.   LOL

 

This post has been removed.

This fine lady can help the Red Sox recruit Verlander (when he becomes a free agent) to Boston.   LOL

Jocularism aside, it's amazing what digital imagery can do to remove commercially undersirable birthmarkings.

Jocularism is an obscure, ancient political philosophy that was laughed out of existence.

you are not pin-pointing correctly who the sellers are.  Yes, a part of the sales team is the model (

In fact, it is you who are not "pin-pointing" who the sellers are. The owner of the product is these women who made the decision to sell their images commercially. They are the sellers. Your injected of the "resellers" is a manifest admission of no reason in a mindless attempt to disagree for ideological reasons. Individual responsiblity is not an ideology.

OK.  We, as usual, will just have to leave it at I say potato and you say po-tah-to.  I think it is both very foolish and very dangerous to look at the commercialization of female sexuality as the result of womens willingness to do so.  This viewpoint is at the heart of Rape Culture, and most certainly this view is "gender skewed".  We are all responsible for the commercialization of female sexuality.  


In fact, you responded to my comment, so it's you who are catatonic.

In fact, it's foolish and dangerous to project individual decision making responsiblity for selling women as sexual objects on "the devils made me do it".  And to inject the meaningless phrase "rape culture" is childish bugaboo and gender skewed in the context you project it. Criminal assualt/"rape" is not gender based, though that's the context you and contemporary culture use it in.

There is no "we" in the responsbility for the commercial sale of females as sexual objects. The responsbility is entirely with the individual who makes the decision to sell their images commercially for sexual objectification.

Since you took the liberty to include yourself in "we", get back with me when you are responsible for some young woman deciding to sell images herself to Sports Illustrated's audience of the art and expression society that subscribes to SI;

 

I see the mods have veiwpont censorsed my comments, and left the comments of Leftist "Spacehead" in this echo chamber.

Hey mods, how long does it take you to delete those photos which violate your own Board policy and amounts to the theft of intellectual property that was purchased by the "pimps and Johns" at Sports Illustrated, as characterized by "Spacehead"?

i still don't see why you think it is an issue that these women make money.... are you against women partaking in the work force??

In response to softlaw2's comment:

Wrong again couselor. How is the "reseller" of a product any less responsible for ... wait this is where I get lost, because I have no idea what we are supposed to be holding any parties "responsible" for ... nevertheless ... how is the reseller of a product any less responsible for any positive or negative ramification of that sale than the original seller?

 

In response to softlaw2's comment:

Don't know what you're looking for guy.

This thread wasn't meant to be taken too serious.

With little baseball news this just something to bid us over, entertain the crowd.

Ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder I kind of think all these girls were lovely.

But there is always one who you just can't please, here is one for you.

Now I know why they call you softy.

 

 

Don't know what you're looking for guy.

This thread wasn't meant to be taken too serious.

What part of "levity" did you miss from my prior comments?

The issue of women selling themselves as sexual objects is a very serious issue. I appreciate your photoshop and other cut and pasting of "full figure women". Perhaps you should consider broadening your horizons and not view these full figured women as fodder for comedy. Just a suggestion.

In response to softlaw2's comment:

The only fodder for comedy on this thread are your posts.

i still don't see why you think it is an issue that these women make money....

How many times do I have to keep posting my prior comments? I don't mind that women make money off selling their images as commercial sexual objects. The issue of who is responsible is my point. Thank you, sir.

Some women say "no". For those who say yes,, they are and should be free to do so

Go sell your PC crap somewhere else you liberal moron this isn't porn

Bathing beauties posing in swim suits are as old as this country.