Just out of curiosity I wonder if the moral outrage would be different if the genders were reversed and the sender texted a picture of his junk?
Butofcourse! Because Junk! Nobody likes a shot of junk. EVERYBODY, even straight heterosexual women can appreciate a good rack.
I got the OPs story wrong. If he did not solicit additional photos after the first topless photos, then he did nothing skeevy.
I see this several times through out the thread. I had to go back and re-read the OP.
Where in the OP is he pretending to be someone else?
Through omission. It’s obvious that the girl thought she was texting with the original owner of the number and he didn’t disavow her of that assumption, and actually encouraged it by bantering with her about the party.
I’m still not convinced. I get “slutty girlz party” spam text messages from time to time on my iphone. If I reply to one asking to be tempted further, who am I pretending to be?
And how is this any different from spam instant messages or emails that contain tempting pictures? If I reply to those asking for more boobage and I get it, am I being anything other than extremely naïve?
Well, the premise of the OP is that he did this out of frustration for getting a lot of texts for the previous owner of the number and responded and played along out of frustration/retaliation. He sets up the premise that she was text the previous owner of the number.
Actually…no. I occasionally enjoy a shot of junk. I put up with racks if I have to…but they’re not something that I seek out, and they’re not something that particularly intrigue me. I’m not repulsed by racks, but they are no more attractive to me than elbows are.
He definitely implies that he’s someone she knows. And even though he claims her first pic was clothed, she sent it while under the impression that he’s her friend. Then he solicits more pics. Now, he didn’t ask for topless pics…but he asked for pics, under the pretext of being her friend.
Where in his first text is the implication of friendship?
There REALLY needs to be a sarcasm tag. 
Yeah, there does. I’ve heard so much about how ALL women enjoy the sight of other women, and ALL women are bi, that I thought you were being serious. Sorry.
He implies that he knows her, and her friend, and about the party. He DOESN’T say “your friend no longer owns this number” which would be the honest, upfront answer. Instead, he prefers to deceive her.
I’ve changed phone numbers a few times myself. And it IS a pain to tell everyone that no, your friend is no longer at this number. But it’s something you just have to do.
I don’t think it’s obvious at all. In fact one could argue that if the sender was known to the recipient that she would not have found it necessary to include the first picture at all, as her name would have sufficed. When you call / text / email anyone you know well do feel the need to include a picture? Most people don’t. Only when the recipient is not all that familiar with you might you feel it necessary to remind them / entice them / introduce yourself with a picture.
Because she was flirting with him! She wanted her (original phone number) friend to see how cute she looked. Or maybe they only met a couple of times at a bar or party and she wanted to remind him who she was. Not all texts have names if the number in the address book isn’t listed with a specific name. I don’t know. But the OP didn’t think it was spam as he didn’t even suggest it earlier and hasn’t suggested it since.
Eh, a lot of people seem to think that they need to include an avatar when posting on a message board. In some cases, the avatar is very large, and very explicit.
/agree
Hell, I’d have gotten the address, showed up to the party and introduced myself to her by showing her the pics she sent me. Raucous hilarity + party atmosphere = good time for all.
I disagree. If she had said " Hi John, are you coming to my friends birthday party like we discussed last night", then yes, he would be misrepresenting himself by not stating that a) he is not John, and b) this is the first conversation we have ever had about a birthday party, or anything else for that matter.
Your or anyone elses assumption (including mine) as to the senders intent does not qualify as an indisputable truth, and to deny that there was any other plausible intent is disingenous. Therefore I think unfair to skewer the OP on any moral harpoons.
The second edit pinged my raised eyebrow meter. It made no sense that he texted twice in a row without a reply from her. Now we have a third version that finally makes sense. C’mon it’s five lines…
That said, even if the first version is true, I don’t blame the OP or think he did anything wrong. Hell, I’d have done it. My take take is that if she had to send the first pic, she obviously was not friends with the person she was trying to text.
Just in case you’re not being intentionally obtuse:
The OP said that whoever had his phone number before him was a very popular person. He then said he normally texts back that the person they are looking for is no longer there, “until today.” Then the point where he finally gets fed up with these calls for the old owner of the phone number comes when he gets a picture of an attractive girl wearing a tank top and short shorts. Of course what one does when he is fed up is tell this person he hasn’t decided if he’s going to the party the other person is being invited to and then when she sends a topless picture asks for more pictures (according to the original story).
Where are you guys getting “necessary” or “had to”? Attractive girl is scantily clad and wants to entice a male she knows to come to a party and sends a pic with a text. That’s not so unusual in 2011 or something that’s only done when “necessary.”
So it’s OK to prostitute herself to that “scantily clad”, but not to tits?
Except she easily and casually took that next step in 2011. To assume she is naive enough to not realize that the photos might get seen by anyone other than the intended recipient in this day and age, is asking too much.
.