The swing from one extreme to another is understandable. I can see how the surroundings of strip clubs, and doing porn (which I describe as sex act captured by some media, stills, video, etc) could be poisonous. However, the more artistic side, the pinup type stuff, the serious photography, that sort of thing wouldn't be unless.... one has been told repeatedly in this society that merely being pictured naked is wrong. That is something that is taught.
I'm talking in general here, I have no clue what sort of modeling work Erica Campbell did... but that letter reads like the 'gateway drug' crapola. Since it was posted she was recently doing a pinup files shoot, I am guessing it was more on the artistic nude or just topless side of things.
I just don't get how artistic pictures of naked women became 'porn'. Do those same people who make that classification look at renaissance painting and think 'porn'? A roman fresco? Countless statues over the centuries? Why is it 'porn' when it's a more modern medium? Now I am getting way far a field... And I guess they do since they go around covering the breasts on old statues... There's no real difference between a model who keeps her clothes on and one that takes them off except the artificial one of this society. It's about the beauty of the resulting image.
It's just this society at large I guess. The control freaks who want to force their ideas on everyone else through religion, guilt, law, force, etc.... As old as known human history....
I read this back and my point doesn't seem that clear, but I hope that most get it anyway
