Pam's new look?

by **James S** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:28pm

Just because I mentioned the ugly clothing doesn't mean that's all I was looking at. I just don't want to give NYIll any satisfaction.

by **Pam** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:29pm

Not to go off topic here but... :wink:

I see how she's attractive, but why the contrived poses? Wouldn't you guys find her more attractive and alluring if she was posed naturally? She just looks like she's obviously posing for a camera shoot, rather than how she'd really look.

Pam

by **Pam** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:30pm

Ok, "posed naturally" is an oxymoron.

But still, I'd think that more natural positioning would be more attractive.

Pam

by **NYIllustrator** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:31pm

she didnt have a choice the photographer told her what to do.

by **BurningSheep** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:32pm

Website · by **Paul** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:32pm

by **Pam** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:33pm

Website · by **Paul** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:36pm

by **NYIllustrator** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:37pm

Website · by **Paul** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:38pm

by **NYIllustrator** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:38pm

by **Keira** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:38pm

by **chriva404** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:40pm

by **James S** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:42pm

Ya but the poses give us guys the impression that she's posing FOR US, not for the camera. I don't prefer looking at girls posing in a picture on a page in a magazine though, and I'd never ask or want a girl to objectify herself that way in real life.
I was also trying to be respectful by not mentioning Renee and her "poses," and I don't see why girls want to objectify themselves like that and then decide later to complain.

And then it was NYIll's turn to compliment Pam, you see how it goes, Shape?

This is why Chriva has the time and will always have so much time to waste on his iPaq and computer.

Website · by **Paul** » Apr 22, 2002 @ 11:42pm

hahaha, i like this kid. wiggeda.

Pam's new look?

Sort

Forum Description

Moderators:

Forum permissions