I feel no need to apologise for anything I have said illusions. Furthermore if you insist on being so strangely literal (or strangely receptively dysphasic) in your interpretations of my words in every exchange we have, then clear communication and understanding between us will never be achieved.
As you were talking about "risque" in reference to Richabri's image, I was refering to images showing the kind of "blatant clitoral exposure" which Richabri's image showed...but you conveniently decided to ignore the context of your own words and concentrate on the dictionary definition of risque...is it any wonder I feel you are sometimes being disingenuous in your comments/replies? Re your examples: the first shows a woman holding her breasts together...where is the the "explicit sexual conduct (masturbation)" there? The second one shows no masturbation either...have you followed the line of the limbs out of frame? The limb positioning precludes masturbation, unless the womans anatomy is deformed...so your statements that these show "explicit sexual conduct (masturbation)" are disingenuous as far as I am concerned...oh, but that's right - you cleverly put "suggests" in your statements preceding these claims didn't you...which probably gets you off the hook in your pedantic interpretation of the english language...but really, how can something suggest explicitness? As for the "bondage" image and your suggestion of torture~ are you serious? If anyone else thinks the subject in that image looks like she's being tortured I would be very surprised.
The poser gallery images I didn't check, as we were talking about the photography gallery. In short none of the images described above are as risque or more risque than Richabri's Admittedly the last example may come sort of close, but you had to be looking very closely at the image Paul, as I could not see what you described on my monitor - it was far too dark and the resolution wasn't great. Your "piece de resistance" looked more like mud to me, and not the blatant in your face gynaecological detail that I saw from the removed image...but no doubt you will continue to want to split hairs on all this. Paul, my native language is English, but not the type you speak obviously, perhaps you should try for politics, you seem so good at it...on that subject, you did say (and this is your own words) "The image was no more risque than any number of photographs currently in the Photograpy Gallery" (something you still haven't proven IMHO) - you did not say: "there were images that were not any more risque than Richabri's" ~ really Paul, what are you trying to do, obfiscate things even more with a bit of doublespeak? BTW, when have I ever tried to shut you up? (as if that would be possible)...perhaps you are being a bit paranoid or hypersensitive. I will try not to offend you any more, perhaps the only way I can do that is if I shut-up? I will now do so on this matter. Also I will try to behave "properly" in my position as moderator according to the law of illusions, thanks for putting me in my place.