You know, another aspect of these types of threads which always annoys me is found in the apparent underlying assumption -- on the part of some -- that a desire to have and/or to render images of 'beautiful' female figures is at the very least morally suspect; and at the worst a sure indicator of inbred, cro-magnon-like male immaturity.

The assumptive formula seems to follow these rules:

"ordinary" = "good, realistic"
"beautiful" = "immature, unrealistic, bad"

It's a good thing that the artistic masters of former eras weren't so polluted with politically correct thinking.  Otherwise, a lot of the inspiration for the world's greatest art would have been consigned to the trash bin.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea: I'm all for "ordinary".  "Ordinary" is good.  But beauty is a reality in the world, too.  And noticing the fact isn't an automatic indication of immaturity.......although, admittedly: the reaction to beauty can be a sure indicator of immaturity.  But that problem is found in the observer: not in the incandescent source.

Something To Do At 3:00AM