Would You Call This Vulgar?
The seller calls this photo "vulgar" -- literally, as in "VULGAR NUDE BRUNETTE Vintage 50s Photo LINGERIE FETISH".Do you see anything vulgar about this?
Is the seller prudish?
Maybe I just look at too much smut.
Then again, being practical, "vulgar" can be a way to communicate -- in the collector's world -- that genitals are visible. But that's not the case here.
So I'd have to say this seller really doesn't have a clue. Not aesthetically, not as a seller of vintage smut.
Labels: Collecting, Euphemisms, Images, Lingerie, Photographs
posted by Silent-Porn-Star at
1:23 AM
4 Comments:
I completely agree with you.
What I see is a confident woman showing a bit of her beautiful body. Absolutely nothing vulgar in sight.
I wish I could look like that :-)
Karin
Oh my gosh there is nothing vulgar about that picture! She's so beautiful and looks completely comfortable.
So I guess I agree with Karin :)
I think it's rather her facial expression and her body language, not her nudity that leads to the association vulgar. One can easily imagine her saying someting vulgar.
I suppose that seller could be using one of the definitions of "vulgar" meaning "plebeian" or "vernacular", but that is unlikely. That seller is likely prudish and perhaps even ashamed of what he is selling; perhaps because the woman is "ethnic". It can also be that by using such a provocative keyword in his description, he is trying to lure more potential buyers.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home