Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Thu 02/05/24 20:27:09 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 52665.4

Subject: Re:Baptisms vs flight attendants

Date: Mon 12/12/11 21:43:05 GMT

Name: Justauser

Email:

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

I had a huge post here.

But I don´T think it will change something, so I cancelled it.

Discussion moved on, maybe it even doen´t really fit here anymore.

There is just one thing that might help everyone:

If you post something, please give everyone the possibility to decide if it is worth clicking or not.

Whatever pic or vid you link, give a real good description.

Yes, it may be a little work, but you might spare many others much more work.

In reply to Message (52665)

Baptisms vs flight attendants

By A lurker with a question - Mon 12/12/11 20:30:36 GMT

Website:

Am I the only one who finds videos of wet flight attendants more offensive than baptism videos? Seriously, when I think of a wet flight attendant, I immediately think of a plane crash. Not sexy. I fly quite a bit, and if I never see a wet flight attendant in person, that's fine with me.

I appreciate the concerns about baptism videos, but as long as the church lets the candidates know that video will be online and publicly accessible, and that they should give some thought to what they will wear at that time, I don't know that it should be a problem. I mean, on any given Sunday, you may find an attractive, well-dressed woman sitting near you in church. Is it wrong to look at her because it's in church? Would it be different if it was the library? I don't think we need to repress our sexuality within the walls of the church.

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)