[psiman99]

"you are quite correct in your position, but utterly wrong in taking it"


Hmm . . . well thanks for your response crispus, I understand the point you make about deterring future participants, any photos are better than no photos, but is this the real choice ?

What about the other women that went there to be photographed, the 3 women in the pulled photo ? They loose out as well.

Given the opportunity, I think a % of women (and men) are hardwired for such exhibitionism.

WNBR is voluntary, and I doubt one drop of oil has been preservered due to their nakedness, in fact, the electricity used up & downloading, viewing, cropping, talking about, - etc - has increased oil usage, because it's all done on computers. Computers burn oil through electricty . . . .

The point being, I really don't think WNBR has jacksh#t to do with oil consumption.

It's about the deeply embedded carnal Human desire to be seen, and to see. A symbiotic relationship betwen the two types.

The Fisherman's recent account of the fully spread eagle chick, with a guy 5ft away staring up her holes, springs to mind.

If you do a bit of wading, you will see availabe, ulta hi -res, zoomed in, perfectly focused crystal clear images of male genitalia by the shedload.

It does not stop these men turning up year after year. The numbers get bigger each year, not smaller.

These gay orientated sites do not suffer from, 'Oh, I best keep it balanced and dedicate 50% of my site to women' B.S.

They freely and openly, express and celebrate their preferred tastes.

So I find it an injustice that hetrosexual men are discouraged from celebrating their prefered tastes, whilst gay men and women are granted unconditional freedom of expression in identical cicumstances.

This factor massively effects the quantity and quality of post, right here and now at OCC, so it's on subject.

e.g.

hxxp://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosfpardo/3621970853/in/set-72157619696255602/

But I do also agree crispus, full on pornographic photos of the ladies would probaly slay some of the Golden Geese.

So instead, we will have to make do with low res inadvertant pussy shots like this gorgeous blonde did. Zoom and imagine as it's 36k.

And photos No 2 - 7.

She is knockout, is it really worth year after year of polite, decent, 200k photos,

Or should someone be damned, and upload the hi -res, perfectly focused cristal clear 6 mb versions instead ?

And if you may have stumbled down here Ms Knockout, your participating opinion would help settle the matter.