It seems that 'revealing' one square inch of skin might see me condemned to hell-fire, Desire.
But c'mon, in those first pics the 'ladies' have ummmm - shape.
And make-up and patterns and style and they are obviously posing !
The second lot could be camels in drag.
Pumicestone, I am certainly not condemning you to hell fire, where on earth have I given you that idea?
What I had thought was that you might change what you stated as being sexy (in some sensual sense) that you might really have meant that you found it more attractive in more of a modest (lady like) sense (rather then the other).
I do not believe it is wrong to find someone handsome or beautiful in their outward appearance. I honestly thought the appearances of those womens suits did not scream sensual, or provoke of the sensual when setting the suits (which fully covered) against that which for the most part was more exposed.
Sort of like the difference between a dress worn on the red carpet in hollywood (as you noted) verses an Amish womans dress, one might be sensual (sexy) as well as outlandishly costly whereas the other be very simple, and practical, and doesnt seek anothers eye to itself. Or just doesnt have all the elements (in comparison) to provoke the sensual response in a man. It plays less to that effect (in otherwords)
Besides, I thought you believed those in the fully dress (bathing suits) were MORE sexy (in a sensual manner) in comparison to that which shows MORE skin and body, thats why I asked.
Like are you sure sexy (as in more sensual) in comparison to the first is what you mean or is it just that you find that more attractive because modesty appeals to you (in otherwords).
The second could be camels in drag? lol
Well, the first lot could be transsexuals in the same (you just never know these days)