Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MooglePorn
I just think it's a little silly to rant and rave about people putting screencaps of naked women on the internet, then sharing screencaps of a woman on the internet. No, she wasn't naked, but the purpose of it was still to look at her and admire her beauty. That's the same purpose of looking at a nude woman, to admire her attractiveness and beauty. To say there's some huge gap between the two is to focus on the act of nudity as being "dirty" or "wrong" in some way. I mean, I really can't think of any other reason for one to be fine to you and the other not.
|
Well, this will ultimately boil down to point of view, but comparing nude screenshots to screenshots of SNL is not the same in my opinion. I’m looking at the screenshots I posted as a reminder of the performance as well as her beauty.
But here is where the wires are crossed. I’m not “ranting and raving” about the images being on the internet, I'm talking about the scene in the film that is later turned into the images. Now, yes, people can take the images I posted and have sexual thoughts and even masturbate to them, but they could do the same thing with a movie poster or any photo for that matter. When you go to a porn site, most times you are not looking for glamour shots.
When she took the photos for SNL, I’m sure it never crossed her mind that they would end up on a porn site. When she was doing “Closer,” that was a real concern. I posted the images in a thread talking about a performance that I enjoyed and I wanted to share them with others that enjoyed it as well. So, yes, to me there is a difference.
If you are saying that the exploitation that goes on with nude captures is the same with the pictures I posted, would you say that I exploited Keira Knightley by putting up pictures from “Pirates of the Caribbean?”
-PH