- Messages
- 12,771
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
rhody said:You are wrong yet again DemiLion.
One Google click and they were there.
A cursory glance was all that was needed to confirm these are firmly in the "seaside pervert" category.
Your wild assumption that I "studied them in detail" is again totally incorrect and laughable - but it is the sort of allegation that would appear in the gutter press to create a wrong impression and smoke screen to disguise the real issue - the invasion of privacy.
rhody said:In some of the shots she is nearly naked, with her bikini bottom pulled down as sun cream is being applied to her back with her back to the camera.
You had to have been searching very hard and looking very closely to find shots that show what you've described.
You still don't get the point that I'm making.
As soon as you decide to search for the photos and view them, you are part of the market. You add to the Google stats and rankings of the sites hosting the photos, which are subsequently analysed to show a desire to view the photographs. That, along with circulation and sales figures for the magazine, combined to drive the desire to get shots like this.
Whether your motive is for titillation or disapproval matters not. Google doesn't record why people search-just that they do so.
You can argue the purity of your actions until you are blue in the face, the end result is the same. Just ask Peter Townshend.