It is my understanding that DawgSports is for the entertainment and (college football) education of its readers.  Kyle and MaconDawg have shown themselves to be knowledgeable and funny (if, in Kyle's case, a little lacking with some basic understanding of musical instrumentation).  These are the two most important things to me when deciding how to spend my internet time for college (and, specifically, UGA) football information.

Part of the entertainment of any visually-oriented website is, prima facie (in a literal sense), its visual aesthetics.  Clearly, many readers appreciate female beauty.  It would appear that at least one reader finds the gratuitous (and whether it is really "gratuitous" is an open question, as it serves the purpose of enhancing the visual aesthetics of the site) use of images of female beauty a little troublesome.  If I understand correctly, it is, in fact, the use of the images (and the use's possible gratuitous nature) that is troublesome, and not the images themselves.

This is, perhaps, a fundamental question of theology, and I don't think this website is the best place to hash out the subtleties of the issue.  But that won't stop me from giving it a brief (I'm a lawyer, too) treatment.

I heretofore have (I believe) avoided discussion or even mention of religion in my handful of posts on this site, because -- well, do I really have to offer an explanation for that?  I am a Christian, and I can offer only my personal experience as a follower of Christ (which experience is a combination of my time with scripture, my time with the world around me, and my time in prayer and contemplation -- that's my Method).  I believe it is the principal duty of all Christians to love God and love each other (two sides of the same coin).  I may understand that duty differently from someone else.  Differences in such understanding are to be expected, inasmuch as we are each independent manifestations of the image of God and not mental clones of one another.

But I ramble (not like a wreck, but like an undisciplined lawyer).

To me, there is a distinction between the gratuitous use of sexual imagery to appeal solely to prurient interests (did I mention I'm a lawyer?) and the use of images that are merely attractive.

Put another way, it's not the teat; it's the tumidity.

But prurience is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps.  We may assume that some people out there "get off" on pictures of kittens or body-painted shirtless boys or bulldogs or scoreboards or any number of images, both perverse and harmless.

If Kyle and MDawg displayed images of kittens or body-painted shirtless boys or bulldogs or scoreboards or beautiful women with the clear intent to (or even with the reckless disregard for the likelihood that they might) distract me from my principal duties (see above), and if I felt so distracted, I would both discontinue my visits and question the morality of these two gentlemen (almost certainly, I would do that questioning silently).

Taken in context, however, it is quite clear to this beholder that the pictures of bulldogs are an attempt to appeal to interests shared by the majority of the site's readers and to enhance the visual appeal of the site and not an attempt to distract any reader from his moral center.

And by context, by the way, I mean the totality of the words that pour forth from these talented and prolific writers.  As with our understanding of the character of our alma mater's head coach, the thoughtfulness (both latent and patent) with which the words on this site are selected provide a sense of comfort that, in addition to allegiance to the Bulldog Nation, we share (unexpectedly but not shockingly) a common set of basic human values.

I mentioned my experience in the world.  I am familiar with slippery slopes.  Suffice it to say that I understand there are certain situations I must avoid in order to prevent a downward slide into dangerous territory.  G-rated pictures of cute chicks are not, for me, one of those slopes (neither, by the way, are bulldogs, scoreboards, shirtless boys, or kittens).  If they were, I'd have to cancel my ISP subscription.  The images used on this site are clearly not red carpets leading to common slippery slopes, even though they might push a rare button here or there.

Too many Paulists would have us believe that the way to salvation is through following a black-and-white set of rules.  It is much simpler, but much more difficult, to eschew the set of rules in favor of the Christian path of figuring out what it means to love.  As for me, I will forego the danger of Paulist shariah in favor of personal responsibility to God.

One final thought: how in the world can it possibly be more troubling from a Christian standpoint to use pictures of attractive and fully-clothed women than to repeatedly profess hatred for someone/something (Auburn)?  (I hate Auburn, too.  I find neither troubling.)