You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
To put it briefly, a trip through the folios indicates a negative correlation.
Big breasts -- maybe big areolae, but most often completely or almost flat nipples.
Small breasts, sometimes verging on vanishingly small -- generally raised and often astonishingly large, mostly erect nipples.
Correlation doesn't mean a causal link, and I didn't pause in my appreciation to make a table, but am I on to something here?
On various occasions I've looked in Playboy (not regularly) and had a rueful thought: "These women are getting maybe 25 thousand dollars for being the centerfold, and they can't be bothered to get their nipples up for the session (finger play, ice cube, cooperation by one of the camera crew)?" But then they all have big breasts. A connection? Exceptions, such as Pamela Anderson, are duly and gratefully acknowledged.
Offline
I don't have a problem with big breasts as long as their natural. The problem is that in the adult magazines, most often the women with large breasts have implants and it is so obvious and looks so un natural and sometimes even the breast implant is tool large in relationship to the woman's frame. I'd much rather see a small breated woman with her natural breasts and without cosmetic surgery then a woman with large implants. I don't find Pamela Anderson attractive. julia Roberts is far more attractive then her even though her breast size may be smaller. Unfortunatley, we have never been able to see Julia Roberts in the nude. Who knows, mabee on day she will show us her assets.
Martin
Offline
Have no idea whether their is a correlation or not, and it may be that girls, women, curvy ones, do not like to stimulate and show their erect nipples as a rule.
As to preference, I prefer smaller breasts and erect nipples look larger on a smaller breast, my opinion only.
Ashmedi is an ancient demon of rage and lust.
Rage is not my thing, but I must admit to committing my favorite of the 7 deadly sins for most of the contributors
Offline
To put it briefly, a trip through the folios indicates a negative correlation.
Big breasts -- maybe big areolae, but most often completely or almost flat nipples.
Small breasts, sometimes verging on vanishingly small -- generally raised and often astonishingly large, mostly erect nipples.
Correlation doesn't mean a causal link, and I didn't pause in my appreciation to make a table, but am I on to something here?
On various occasions I've looked in Playboy (not regularly) and had a rueful thought: "These women are getting maybe 25 thousand dollars for being the centerfold, and they can't be bothered to get their nipples up for the session (finger play, ice cube, cooperation by one of the camera crew)?" But then they all have big breasts. A connection? Exceptions, such as Pamela Anderson, are duly and gratefully acknowledged.
I think there's a correlation between Playboy and photoshop yes Anyway come on man the people your talking about are reading and posting on the forum or hasn't that occurred to your vanishingly small brain, or is it that it has occurred to you and you don't care.
.
Offline
Hi yshtys12:
"A negative correlation?"
"These women are getting maybe 25 thousand dollars for being the centerfold, and they can't be bothered to get their nipples up for the session (finger play, ice cube, cooperation by one of the camera crew)?" But then they all have big breasts. A connection? Exceptions, such as Pamela Anderson, are duly and gratefully acknowledged."
I think your post is fairly negative - why bother putting it up? The women on here don't really want to be obliquely criticised for what you perceive to be their shortcomings: small breasts/big nipples = not good enough. Big breasts/small nipples = not good enough. Huge, fake breasts and erect nipples (a la Pamela Anderson) = bang on the money.
This site offers people a beautiful dose of erotic reality, so if you can't appreciate it, why are you here?
Offline
right on, basil!
Offline
Yeah well said!
.
Offline
Pages: 1