StephenEastwood wrote:

Is'nt that more like the 2 girl 1 cup thing?  Just asking?

Casue that is just really not appealing at all

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Bahhh hahahahahahahahaha

2 girls 1 cup is soooo bad.

Have you seen 2 girls 1 finger? It is even worse.

I was scarred for life after seeing that.

SayCheeZ! wrote:

Someone just got a ton of hits to their MM portfolio page!

Seen one, you've seen them all.  Pffffffffpfppp

MartinKenneth wrote:
What if the woman vagina is fully covered with hair is that still consider nude ?

Yes, unless you knit it into a jumper

Rhian Alise wrote:

Bahhh hahahahahahahahaha

2 girls 1 cup is soooo bad.

Have you seen 2 girls 1 finger? It is even worse.

I was scarred for life after seeing that.

That just made me heave!

MartinKenneth wrote:
What if the woman vagina is fully covered with hair is that still consider nude ?

The vulva is perfectly fine.  It's the spreading of the vulva where you see the opening of the vagina and urethra that is inappropriate on MM.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:
What if the model is completely nude, but the lens is shoved so far up her hootch that you only see a slightly reddish glow from the flashlight pressed against her belly. Is that considered nude, or just showing pink?

roflmao

StephenEastwood wrote:

What about raunchy naked?  I mean nude sounds all art like, so does raunchy nakedness equate and count the same or is that different?  and does it matter if its going to be shot in a Terry Richardson style vs a glamour style?


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Right now I'm just not shooting nudes.

That may change in the future, and if it's restrictive to certain styles, I'll make it as clear as I can