ID Number: 176 From: jrichins2000
Subject: Re: Spreads
Date: Sunday, January 28 2001 - 22:27:22
Apparently, Lisa can divide her fans into at
least two classes - those who stereotype her as a
porn-slut piece of meat, fit only for sexual consumption by
anonymous male viewers, and those who view her as a person
with substantial talent and intelligence, as well as
beauty. It may be that some questions posed to her in
email, chat, etc. and that are of a sexual nature may
not be inappropriate and deserve to have an answer.
On the other hand, it is totally Lisa's prerogative
to set the boundaries on which questions are
appropriate and which are not. I wouldn't be able to say
whether she defers on sexual questions too easily or not,
as I have never asked her a question of a sexual
nature.
However, that isn't the point I wish to make. I think
that, generally speaking, if a woman chooses to model,
nude or not, but especially if those photos are less
of an overtly sexual nature and more of an
"artistic" or "expressive" nature, then her choice to model
should not automatically cast her as either an expert on
all things sexual, nor as a focus for expending pent
up sexual tension, nor as evidence of her
willingness to discuss or consent to engage in conversation
of a sexual nature.
In other words, returning
to the specific case of Ms. Scott, the mere fact
that Lisa is nude in a lot of published photos, does
not imply that she is somehow obligated to answer
questions about her sex life. Nor should it indicate that
she has or eventually will "progress" beyond
"soft-core" material to do anything of an overtly sexual
nature.
Perhaps one day she may decide to pose for explicit
sexual photographs, and if she does, I support her right
to choose to. But, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Contact me with any problems, suggest a correction, or a change. Please include the 'ID number'/search terms/what is wrong/any other information that you can think of and I will try to correct it.
Click Here to contact the webmaster