my only problem is in the puritanical ethnocentrism of the rules regarding female photos.
no images that if they were in a magazine you'd need ID to buy
HA! In the liberal UK, you can buy magazines featuring women flashing their boobs with no need for ID. Loaded, Front, Zoo and Nuts regularly have bare boobage and there's no restriction on their sale. and that's besides three national daily newspapers having 'page 3 girls' flashing their bristols to all and sundry.
i also don't get this whole 'side boob' thing. WTF? Seriously? the side of a boob is titalating? come on! you can have titlating pictures with NO boob showing!
and, frankly, i think it's sexxist saying no bare boobs, yet bare male chests are allowed. the argument goes that since men don't have mammary glands, this is some how okay, yet women are clearly excited over shirtless pictures of men or we wouldn't have women posting with avatars of shirtless Connor Trineer. or posting images of bare chested hunks. slag off Hermiod's whinging all you want, but he's right that there is a double-standard there.
oh, and, yeah, selective quoting, not good. context is everything...