And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein

shouldn't you put her in the attractive women section vs. a blog spot... i think everyone is silent, cuz you posting porn and trying to slide it off as academic

akso God is only capitalized when it is a monotheistic God. the plural version is lowercase.

Kristin: When praise is due, all you can think of is grammar! Worse, by what unholy creed have you labeled the above pornographic? Academics be damned; thou shalt revel in the glory of creation; God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7).

its also tacky to quote the bible to push a very unbiblical action---posting pictures of women that you appreciate from lustful standpoint. evidently u are not christian or jewish. otherwise you would be offended.

Kristin: Your understanding of Christianity needs tweaking. Sincere Christians can be found doing this. It is the intention that is important. Why are the nipples of the woman censored? To induce lust? I am under no obligation to censor the nipples. The purpose is to illustrate the glory of creation, and if the illustrative examples may induce lust in some individuals, then it is necessary to somewhat censor them to make the purpose of posting the pictures clear.

i just realized this is the most absurdly veiled porn reference commission site on the net. i dunno how i didnt notice immediately. not that i have anything against porn or profiting from it. good luck. being a pornographer seems like a good idea if you want to make money on the web.

Dave: There is no porn within this site; I am not a pornographer, and many of the referenced sites are not porn sites. No commission is being earned from the site referenced in this entry, which is not a porn site to start with. Identifying the source(s) of the images, if known, is a legal requirement since copyrighted images can only be displayed under the fair use provision or with explicit permission of the copyright holder, which is automatically granted to those who sign up as an affiliate. Therefore, it is almost a requirement to sign up as an affiliate in order to minimize the likelihood of legal problems over displaying copyrighted images. Additionally, the images displayed are usually not available to non-affiliates unless they join the site the images are taken from. Therefore, signing up as an affiliate is a necessity, regardless of the commission issue. Moreover, running this site requires money, and the readers are not paying to browse this site. The money has to come from somewhere, and if it comes from the sites providing the images, then it dovetails very nicely with the necessity of becoming an affiliate of these sites.

Speaking of an “absurdly veiled porn reference commission site,” why would I go through the trouble of spending hours looking up scientific literature and addressing it within this site when I could simply post, without using my actual name, more pictures of nude women, and uncensored ones at that, to earn a lot more in terms of commissions?

i think the honest thing to do would be to let your readers know that you are a paid affiliate of these porn sites you are linking. do you disagree?

Dave: I have already told you that many of the sites referenced are not porn sites. Am I being dishonest? If I were paid to display some women here as attractive and did not explicitly state this, then you are looking at a conflict of interest similar to researchers reporting data from a drug trial without identifying that the drug manufacturer paid them to conduct the study. However, none of the sites that I am signed up as an affiliate with work in this manner. They pay a commission only if someone referred from this site joins them. Therefore, there is no need for me to explicitly state that I am an affiliate of a referenced site if this is the case. Even if I were paid to feature a particular model within this site, there is enough scientific data here to justify any claims I would make about her masculinity-femininity/attractiveness, i.e., you could not accuse me of saying that a given woman is attractive because I have been paid to say so.

Note that I have made no attempt to hide affiliate links. For instance, check out superbeauty.org, a website claiming to fight for female beauty. This site has little in terms of written content, but features links to many websites -- supposedly united in their fight for beauty -- and these websites happen to sell nude photographs of women. The links to these websites from the superbeauty site are in the form:

Guess what “site=56” corresponds to? The “out.cgi” file contains the full affiliate link, which you cannot see. I could easily do this with all my affiliate links, but do not feel any need to do so. Both your comments in this entry apply to the superbeauty site, but this site does not offer a facility for people to leave comments. You should try emailing the comments you left above to the webmaster of the superbeauty site and see what response you get.

i dunno what your are worried about, making money from pornography is nothing to be ashamed of. i hope you make lots of money from your porn affiliate links.

Dave: I am not worried about obtaining commissions from porn sites and artistic nudity sites. However, I do need to respond to smear, which I did.

What is this?
"...to INSPIRE man" is right, haha. she is a succubus sent by satan to instill lust in the hearts of men, do not succumb to the ungodly allure of her flesh. The Gods are not pleased by your use of their name.

hoax?: Thou shalt not assign the glorious creation of the Gods to Satan. The Satanic influence is observed in the fashion industry: sodomites, pederasts; starving, sickly and sub-fertile women.

Eric, I recall you once said that you have no religious attitudes regarding homosexuality but you have started to refer to gay men as "sodomites". It seems like you do have some religion-based homophobic beliefs.

You know nothing about the health or fertility of high fashion models so stfu. The high fashion industry is not satanic because you find the models unattractive Eric. Your neutral facade is unraveling. You have provided even more proof that you are a sexist, homophobic, right-wing nutbag.

Danielle: Do you believe a right winger would be posting so much nudity? The comment by hoax? is a joke just as my reply is. Sodomite is a Biblical term, but I have been using the word “Gods.” So what does this tell you? I believe that there are many Gods and also Goddesses, and am not a Christian. I don’t believe in the Christian entity of Satan. I just like the word sodomite, perhaps because of the way it sounds, and I have no religious attitudes toward homosexuality.

How healthy high-fashion models look requires no comment. The readers can look at their pictures and judge for themselves. High-fashion models generally have body fat levels below the medically healthy range and are bound to have sub-par fertility on average.

I don’t see how my arguments are sexist.

Eric, Sodomite is a pretty offensive word so I suggest you don't use unless you want even more accusations of homophobia to be thrown at you.

You cannot judge someon'e fertility levels by looking at a picture of them Eric. I know fashion models are skinny but you know nothing about the health of individual models so stop making assumptions.

You are using the term sub-fertile as an insult. I think that's pretty sexist.

Danielle: Sodomite appears to be a mildly offensive word, and was the standard term for male homosexuals for a long time. Its literal meaning is a resident of Sodom. Besides, given some of the things I have written about the nature of homosexuality, it would be futile for me to avoid using a Biblical term when appropriate in order to appear less "homophobic."

The medical literature argues against your statement that fertility cannot be judged from looking at someone's pictures. I am not judging the fertility of particular individuals but of groups. Outside a range of body fat levels, fertility diminishes. If one encounters a group of women most of whom have body fat levels below the healthy range, then it is easy to infer that the group has sub-par fertility compared to controls. Fertility also diminishes with above average masculinization. Women in the height range of high-fashion models also tend to have below average fertility. Therefore, one can make the inference of below average fertility in high-fashion models compared to the general female population. Look for citations within this site.

What do you mean "sub-fertile" is an insult? How many people have you come across using this insult? There is nothing sexist about it. For it to qualify as sexist, it needs to connote female inferiority/male superiority, but it doesn't.