Tan Lines....

tumblr_mnyzt0KQOe1spjjjpo1_500.jpg
 
4and1 said:
tumblr_m3mjl7fhea1rtvw1do1_500.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm into it visually-total stunner. Top to bottom- especially bottom, fk... ;)

But part of me says in 1954 (it's a 54 Olds, amiright?), that combo of ass/tits/lean midsection+fitness+muscularity/facial feature/make up and boots didn't exist (plus hair of course).
While the make up and boots are styles that change, and the tits appear a well done tasteful augmentation, it's still a question if in thousands of years, are we highlighting a different build that just got ignored 50 or 100, 250 years ago, or... are we actually 'making' something that didn't exist?
Did a coal miner in England or Poland or wherever she's from, go home to that in the kitchen? Antique photos say no...very different bodies, even facial features.

Could be just the pose, but those quads are close to suggesting fitness-girl low-dose testosterone for muscle and leanness, with anavar, plus cardio and the right lifting set in the gym.
Touch up cheekbones, nose or lips if needed- in real life (surgery) or in photoshop.
Or out of ~500 million white girls, are we just selecting for new types and/or flat out raising the bar here?
I know some people who examine the model trade for one reason or another have been asking this for a few years, but now with completely scratch build computer generated pics- one of which was pointed out in a thread on here recently, we'll all be asking these questions.
Fortunately for me, I kind of am into the unconventional- so called figure flaws beat vain perfection for a fun time 100% of the time, but look at the kids today, how many of them have that level of drive?

I know, thinking too hard. ;)
 
IADR said:
I'm into it visually-total stunner. Top to bottom- especially bottom, fk... ;)

But part of me says in 1954 (it's a 54 Olds, amiright?), that combo of ass/tits/lean midsection+fitness+muscularity/facial feature/make up and boots didn't exist (plus hair of course).
While the make up and boots are styles that change, and the tits appear a well done tasteful augmentation, it's still a question if in thousands of years, are we highlighting a different build that just got ignored 50 or 100, 250 years ago, or... are we actually 'making' something that didn't exist?
Did a coal miner in England or Poland or wherever she's from, go home to that in the kitchen? Antique photos say no...very different bodies, even facial features.

Could be just the pose, but those quads are close to suggesting fitness-girl low-dose testosterone for muscle and leanness, with anavar, plus cardio and the right lifting set in the gym.
Touch up cheekbones, nose or lips if needed- in real life (surgery) or in photoshop.
Or out of ~500 million white girls, are we just selecting for new types and/or flat out raising the bar here?
I know some people who examine the model trade for one reason or another have been asking this for a few years, but now with completely scratch build computer generated pics- one of which was pointed out in a thread on here recently, we'll all be asking these questions.
Fortunately for me, I kind of am into the unconventional- so called figure flaws beat vain perfection for a fun time 100% of the time, but look at the kids today, how many of them have that level of drive?

I know, thinking too hard. ;)
Click to expand...

With the blinker in the bumper I think it is a 56.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top