Verified answer

That's the reflection of her shirt on the roof of the car. You can't see hardly below her belly button.

I don't feel that the playful graphic was "x-rated" by any means. However, there is a touch of irony in your question. By the end of the year, Yahoo is looking to launch a porn website called "Wazoo". They are looking to be in direct competition with the other "free" porn websites. This move is part of a five year plan to regain there position in the search engine field.

That is obviously a reflection of the bottom of her shirt. Her 'visible panties' are the exact same color as the car, notice that?

Funny, I'm a very observant person when it comes to sexually suggestive material and I completely missed that.

What does that say about which one of us more obsessed? I can understand why you fear even the slightest hint of sex in any media given your reaction toward this rather benign display.

You should seriously consider seeking professional help.

I haven't seen what you're referring to, but sex sells, and Yahoo is a business. That doesn't sound like it's encouraging porn... it is just attention grabbing as you said.

You know, in most actual Christian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc etc) she could be naked and no one would bat an eye. Nudity does not equal sex. A bit of panty showing does not equal sex either and anyone who thinks it does is probably a pervert who should be kept far, far away from small children.

Use Adblock Plus for Firefox.

Edit:

Even looking at flirtatious images can be counted as the sin of lust (Matthew 5:28), especially if you're married.

Porn = Sexual acts or poses in video or pictures. (Usually nude)

That = Flirtasous posing tempting men and certian woman to click.

Better have another look at the photograph your description is inaccurate as her pants and underpants are not shown.

No.

That particular page is only loading on the computers belonging to prudes.

Begsus D