Boyfriend/husband and lap dancing clubs..???

thatgirlsam

Person_one wrote: »

That's terribly patronising.

Most !!!!!! is rubbish anyway, and bears absolutely no relation to real life sex within a normal loving relationship. It always bothers me that so much of it involves the women looking like they're in fairly intense pain.

Maybe this man was brought up to view women as human beings and equals and just doesn't get turned by watching them be degraded.

You've been watching the wrong kind of p0rn!

Tropez

PrincessPlaty wrote: »

You saw it anyway and besides it was a crap example :rotfl:

Would it help if I said I had a feeble memory?

Seriously though, I agree with what you have been saying.

thatgirlsam

Person_one wrote: »

What a shame that she worked so hard to pay for the degree and then completely wasted it.

:rotfl:

Funny that you just called ME patronising!!

PrincessPlaty

Tropez wrote: »

Would it help if I said I had a feeble memory?

Nope :rotfl:

Tropez

PrincessPlaty wrote: »

Nope :rotfl:

Then I have no choice but to reiterate my earlier comment.

Aww, poopies.

shellsuit

PrincessPlaty wrote: »

No offence taken, its because of the light reflecting which is why it comes out on the images like that
For something that you would want to keep as a memory I agree it is no good at all, however in the industry this is classed as an exceptionally good image, due to it being technically correct at every aspect. It shows that I can do my job and that the photographer can do his if that makes sense :rotfl:

Couldn't the photographer have altered the lighting then?

You don't half remind me of an old friend I went to school with, it's uncanny!

Lotus-eater

shellsuit wrote: »

You're gonna think I'm a right nasty b!tch, but I don't mean to come across as that, honestly, but you are a very pretty girl and all I can see on this pic is a face full of make up (I don't mean the eyes etc they look fab, I mean your foundation or whatever it is), which you really don't need, so I wouldn't call it a good pic at all, because all I'm focused on is that

(I'm just being honest, I don't mean to cause offence at all!)

Yeah, I thought the same tbh, I thought the other picture was much more natural and as glamour goes, better for me.

I saw it Tropez

thatgirlsam

I think expecting your OH to never, ever find other women sexually attractive is really unrealistic. This doesn't mean that he will cheat on you.

Expecting your OH to only EVER think of you in a sexual way is just not going to happen imo. It's normal to be sexually attracted to humans of the opposite sex. Or the same sex.

PrincessPlaty

shellsuit wrote: »

Couldn't the photographer have altered the lighting then?

You don't half remind me of an old friend I went to school with, it's uncanny!

Yes of course but it happens with most styles of lighting its just the effect that it has unless you are using natural sunlight with a reflector, you won't get a much different effect.

Do i? Dare i ask why :rotfl:

PrincessPlaty

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Yeah, I thought the same tbh, I thought the other picture was much more natural and as glamour goes, better for me.

I saw it Tropez

Second one wasn't an example of glamour though

First one was also an unedited image. Its very rare to get images back from paid work

Tropez saw it too