Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Playmate update

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 05, 2002
 Comments:
I have been out of town for awhile, and was reading comments on my last diary entry. An Anonymous Reader was so kind to provide pictures of the lady.

I am willing to go on record and say she DID NOT look like that in person.

She was wearing clothes. Baggy clothes.

I just guess it proves that women really are better looking naked. It just makes me wonder what some of the truly "devastatingly beautiful" women I know look like disrobed. But seriously, I don't think anybody would recognize her on the street, no matter how long you've been uhm, appreciating her pictures.

diaries

More diaries by First Incision
What's in my name?
An Afternoon Downtown
First Incision, American Television Viewer, Condemns
Sticker
A marching band has made me cry
Band of Brothers
A request for a book review
My TV crush
Biochem, and other useful sciences
The Air Force
A quote for the readers of Adequacy
Hollywood has lied to me
New Toys
Thomas Kinkade vs. RMS
My newfound non-conformity
Shot Glass vs. Rosary
Analyze this
The recession can't touch me!
Cold Turkey
She's not my queen!
Imagination
Thomas Kinkade: Jigsaw Review
My brush with a playmate
Biblical sexiness
"The Blinding Dawn" or "Breakfast at PizzaHut
The Caffeine Fix
Muppets in a courtroom?
*END* IP Token
The US Civil War
Have a Solemn Lent
King Cotton
God and High Society
[I am saddened that] the Hypermints are gone.
You have broken my will
Glasses make people ugly.
Operation Enduring Uptime
Am I a 75-cent whore?
Vice Principal checks for thongs and bras
Square bacchanal
Fire
Absurdity
Snoozing through Star Wars
Thank you, allies.
Voting
My Father, the geek
Southern Belle Asian Chicks
Adequacy scooped by Fortune
A Down Home 4th of July
A question for the atheists
A dream of Communism and porno
I am dating a liberalist
I'm thinking of joining the Citizen Corps
Shotgun Weddings
I s God punishing my parents?
My Day at the Monestary
On nations and ethic groups


       
Tweet

"Appreciating"? (4.00 / 1) (#1)
by tkatchev on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 04:58:03 AM PST
Be a man, say what you mean -- "whacking off like and adolescent monkey".


--
Peace and much love...




Please! Do it with a pun! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by because it isnt on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 07:55:16 AM PST
People should say of porn stars, "Ah yes, I recall the first time I came across your work". Much better.

On the topic at hand, it's a well known fact that photographers can make even ugly women look quite pretty. Judging from the provided photos, this lady friend of yours must look perfectly acceptable in real life, even if not world-shatteringly beautiful.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Hang on a minute. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 11:00:54 AM PST
Let's review, shall we?

  1. You meet a decent-looking woman in a casual setting
  2. You know for a fact that this woman has modeled nude in one of the best-known nudie magazines in the world
  3. You go home and sit down at your computer
  4. Your computer is connected to the internet
  5. You could, at this point, go to google and type in the woman's name
  6. Instead, you go to Adequacy and type in "Dear diary: ..."
So, um, what gives? I mean, I don't like to throw around the question lightly, but are you a homosexual? Are you Amish? Have you installed some sort of censorship software in a fruitless attempt to protect your children?

And you call yourself a Medical student. For shame. In my day, Medical students spent most of their time trying to prove that they had dirtier minds and fouler mouths than Law students. You're a disgrace to your anticipated profession.


Explanation (none / 0) (#7)
by First Incision on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 07:50:53 PM PST
Actually, you were close on your last guess.

I was at home for the Holidays, and posting on my Mom and Dad's computer, and they were in the next room. I wasn't about to start searching for porn in that situation.

And it wouldn't surprise me if some of my classmates have such competitions with law students.

But I'm way out of their league. That's why I'm on Adequacy.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Let me explain. (none / 0) (#10)
by tkatchev on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 05:21:47 AM PST
You see, a normal, functional human male usually doesn't suffer from spermotoxicosis after passing puberty. If you are indeed older than 15, and you suffer from the deplorable condition, I suggest you visit your friendly neighborhood sexopathologist or phychologist.


--
Peace and much love...




I'm so sorry. (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:17:57 AM PST
It's been quite a long while since you had a girlfriend, hasn't it?

My condolences, tkatchev.


I detect... (none / 0) (#13)
by tkatchev on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 02:01:15 PM PST
..somebody who is incredibly self-conscious and unsure of his own sexuality.

Sex is just a bodily function. Learn to deal with it -- puberty should not be a disaster.


--
Peace and much love...




Why do you hate sex so much? (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 03:03:12 PM PST
Sex is certainly not "just a body function." Sex is fun. Sex is a wonderful way to express intimacy. Sex is a good way to relieve stress. Sex is part of this complete breakfast. Sex is a very important component of marriage. Sex is a good topic of conversation. Sex cures loneliness.

Why do you want to reduce sex to a mere body function? Are you afraid of sex? Do all the other, more confusing aspects of sex make you uncomfortable? Would these other aspects of sex complicate your world view? Does this reductionist approach of yours help you to feel superior to teen-agers?

Sex, tkatchev.

Sex, sex sex!


Why do you hate food so much? (none / 0) (#15)
by tkatchev on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:38:09 PM PST
Food is certainly not "just a body function." Food is fun. Food is a wonderful way to express intimacy. Food is a good way to relieve stress. Food is part of this complete breakfast. Food is a very important component of marriage. Food is a good topic of conversation. Food cures loneliness. Why do you want to reduce food to a mere body function? Are you afraid of food? Do all the other, more confusing aspects of food make you uncomfortable? Would these other aspects of food complicate your world view? Does this reductionist approach of yours help you to feel superior to teen-agers? Food, tkatchev. Food, food food!

P.S. I am sorry, but there isn't anything spiritual about sex. Sex is just a bodily function; any other claim is just a poor attempt at covering up your own godless soullessness. Trying to replace a person's spiritual life with banal intercourse is a common liberalist trick; however, just like the other common liberalist substitution of "lust" for "love", it simply doesn't work.

You'll realize how right I am years from now, when you discover that the yawning hole inside you simply cannot be covered up with any amount of sperm.


--
Peace and much love...




Why do you hate God? (none / 0) (#16)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 11:14:43 PM PST
"Bodily functions" are a gift from God. Enjoyment of food, sex and a host of physical sensations are a gift given to us as a mark of our status above animals. You have repeatedly denied that we should appreciate these gifts, and therefore deny the beauty and grace of God in giving them to us. Do you want to reduce these gifts to the status of Satan's tools and diminish their place in our lives? Would acceptance of these gifts in your life complicate your worldview? Or does your denial of basic human pleasures grant you some sense of superiority to those who embrace them and thank God for their place in our lives?

Life is what you make of it.


A troll's true colors.

What the fuck is your problem? (none / 0) (#17)
by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 12:24:58 AM PST
Have I said anything about not accepting sex?

Do you not see the difference between "accepting sex" and "pretending that sex replaces spirituality"? No? Do you see the difference between "love" and "lust"? No?

Then why the fuck are you posting deliberately inane and trollish commentary?

I should call the troll hunters of this site on your stupid ass.


--
Peace and much love...




No, no problems here (none / 0) (#18)
by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 02:25:42 AM PST
I'm just pointing out logical flaws I perceive in what you project as your worldview. If it offends you that I delivered my argument in a manner similar to that which you yourself use, then I regret that it did so. I understand that the medicine we prescribe to others doesn't always taste very pleasant in return.

In answer to your question, I didn't accuse you of not "accepting" sex. You have previously stated that the purpose of sex is purely procreation, and is not acceptable as recreation. I used that understanding as the foundation of my statement. You reject enjoyment of sex in favor of sex purely as a procreative event. Please refer back to my parent post for my reaction to this.

You could call the troll hunters on my ass, but I assure you my statements were made in earnest. The only "troll" in my remarks were in my presentation.


A troll's true colors.

Logic, my liberalist friend? (none / 0) (#19)
by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 02:58:23 AM PST
Indeed, the only purpose of sex is procreation. Does it have any other useful purpose? I thought so.

I'm not denying that sex can give a short feeling of euphoria -- but then, so do a million other things in life. Video games, for example. Even going to the bathroom is a great pleasure if you wait long enough.

Unlike you, though, I'm not making any universal conclusions out of the fact. Unlike you, I'm not trying to make that point that going to the bathroom is the most important thing in life. Yes, sex can be fun sometimes. So what? There are so many "fun" things in life that picking out one as the "most important" is simply perversity.

My friend, puberty does not have to be a disaster. Some people manage to survive puberty with a holistic poersonality and without massive complexes.


--
Peace and much love...




Only purpose? (none / 0) (#22)
by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:28:36 PM PST
So, I suppose then that the Song of Solomon is purely about procreative duties. The anticipation and enjoyment of sex never enters into it. Thank you again for correcting my erroneous understanding.


A troll's true colors.

You are the fucking stupidest person in the world. (none / 0) (#23)
by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:51:43 PM PST
Does sex have any functional purpose besides procreation? (Hint: The answer is "no".)

P.S. Well, maybe as a source of income, in some cases. I don't think that's quite what you meant, though.


--
Peace and much love...




Functionality (none / 0) (#24)
by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:07:35 PM PST
I can think of quite a few functions for sex beyond procreation off the top of my head, but "functional" is highly subjective.

Allow me to provide you with an example. Do you serve any functional purpose beyond the attempt to pass on your genetic heritage to the next generation? No? I didn't think so. Seems like an awful waste of material to me.


A troll's true colors.

You are finally beginning to "get it". (none / 0) (#25)
by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:16:13 PM PST
Allow me to provide you with an example. Do you serve any functional purpose beyond the attempt to pass on your genetic heritage to the next generation?

Actually, not even that. My genetic information is not unique -- whatever is in there is probably duplicated multiple times in the genetic code of my relatives. (E.g. brothers and sisters, for example.)

You are indeed completely correct. None of us ultimately serve any functional purpose.

Which is why any decent person must believe in God.

Objections? Even a liberalist should be happy with the logic presented here.


--
Peace and much love...




Well, that was deeply irrelevant (none / 0) (#26)
by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:28:50 PM PST
Thank you for sticking to the topic at hand.

No one has brought up the issue of belief or disbelief in God. You deny God's gifts to you and you demote human existence to functional irrelevance. Therefore, I ask again: why do you hate God?


A troll's true colors.

Sigh. (none / 0) (#27)
by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:51:56 PM PST
Where is your vaunted liberalist logic?

Either you use sex for functional needs, (which we determined to be limited to procreation, which we agreed to be irrelevant anyways) for entertainment purposes, (which again we agreed to be irrelevant) or for "spiritual" needs. (Which we agreed to be a fruitless and perverted exercise.)

I am still waiting for you to explain why sex needs special treatment.

Note that I never denied that sex is enjoyable or acceptable. You are making an extraordinary claim that sex is somehow vastly more important than all other forms of entertainment combined. You have failed to prove this, since you could not show the great functional or spiritual significance of sex.

I am still waiting for your explanation.


--
Peace and much love...




Role reversal (none / 0) (#28)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:21:35 AM PST
I don't need proof. Proof is a clever liberalist trick to confuse the issue. Anyone with eyes to see can understand it, if they look. If you don't understand it, you're clearly not adequate.

Incidentally, with regard to your denials, you lose.


A troll's true colors.

Yes? (none / 0) (#29)
by tkatchev on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 03:11:55 AM PST
Did you have something to say, or did you just feel like parroting my words?

Honestly, I could not understand your point.


--
Peace and much love...




Try thinking (none / 0) (#30)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 04:12:56 AM PST
Here is your statement: You have failed to prove this...

Here is my response that, as you say, parrots your words: I don't need proof. Proof is a clever liberalist trick...

Here's the other relevant statement from you: I never denied that sex is enjoyable or acceptable.

My response: You lose. But feel free to play again!


A troll's true colors.

"Proof". (none / 0) (#31)
by tkatchev on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 04:33:18 AM PST
I don't need proof. But you, my friend, seem to have an enduring conflict with reality. If you fail to understand what I'm saying, don't worry about; we'll let it drop.

P.S. Please quote my words, the words where I denied that sex is acceptable and enoyable. I think you really have a monstrous problem differentiating between "X is pleasurable" and "X is the most important thing in my life". Then again, that is a typical liberalist trait.


--
Peace and much love...




Thank you for validating my opinions of you. (none / 0) (#34)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 12:55:38 PM PST
I'm going to bookmark the link to your comment there. It is a classic statement of a fool professing to be wise. Your confessed double standard is an important detail for everyone to remember when attempting to hold a discussion with you.

As for your sophistry, let's refer back to what I originally used as the foundation for my argument: You have repeatedly denied that we should appreciate these gifts [sex]... Using a little critical thinking, you will be aware that I have repeatedly said that you do not deny that sex is enjoyable, you deny that sex should be enjoyed.

To back up my statements, I link to your comments here and here. In the first, you state As long as you keep sex down to a bodily function...you are doing fine. In the second, you state Obviuosly, doing something for "personal pleasure" is harmful to your immortal soul. Both of these statements deny our gifts, in that enjoying what is given to us we are condemned.

I challenge the notion that pleasure is a sin. Physical sensation, like religion, is a measure of our status in this world. Also like religion, it is not wrong if used and appreciated without abuse. I acknowledge that you've accused Americans (as if the rest of the world isn't just as guilty) of abusing sex, but in your arguments you take the stance that merely enjoying sex is a sin. Your reactionary viewpoint is worthy of the Taliban.

Thank you for your cooperation. Like it or not you lose, and this thread is concluded.


A troll's true colors.

You are hopeless. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by tkatchev on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 02:02:58 PM PST
In the second, you state Obviuosly, doing something for "personal pleasure" is harmful to your immortal soul. Both of these statements deny our gifts, in that enjoying what is given to us we are condemned.

According to Christian beliefs, anything that is done for personal pleasure is a sin. Including, but not limited to, chewing bubble gum, eating in expensive restaourants, watching TV, etc.

Yes, pleasure is a sin. Almost everything is a sin. Living is a sin. (Read Genesis, the fall of man is explained in there.)

However, that does not mean that we are "condemned". God is infinite forgiveness, so the only way to be "condemned" is to willingly refuse God's gift of salvation.

You are trying to prove to me that it's OK to pleasure yourself with sex just because it's "natural". Well, guess what: it's not. Remember the part of Genesis where Adam and Eve suddenly realized that they are naked after they ate the apple? This story perfectly and succinctly explains the sinful nature of sex.

I'll repeat myself yet again, because you seem to lack reading comprehension skills:

Yes, sex is a sin. So is almost everything, though. Living is a sin, inherrently. That is why we need Jesus Christ.


--
Peace and much love...




condolences (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 03:35:38 PM PST
I suggest you atone for your sins and take steps to correct them immediately! The only true repentence for your sins is to stop committing them.


 
Proved wrong, AGAIN! (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:03:57 AM PST
There I was, sitting in my cramped little cubicle having just spoken to my PHB, innocently thinking, "I've heard pretty much all the stupid things there are to hear," and then... then I stumble across this incoherent example of idiocy and I am forced to think, "God IS real, and God's got one hell of a sense of humor."

I like God, He's funny.


 
What would Jesus do? (none / 0) (#32)
by Lint on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 10:35:03 AM PST
Probably not use that kind of filthy language, that's for sure.


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

Newsflash. (none / 0) (#33)
by tkatchev on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 10:52:01 AM PST
I am not Jesus.

If I were Jesus, then I would be sinless.
As it were, though, swearing on foreign-language forums is probably the smaller of my sins.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Um, "spritituality?" (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:10:25 AM PST
What the hell did anyone say about "sprititual" components of sex, tkatchev?

We're talking about basic human emotion, here, not your grandiloquent "spirituality." There's no need to drag your perpetually redefined "god" into any of this.

Loneliness. Intimacy. A happy way to begin the day. A refutation of solitude.

What, praytell, do any of these things have to do with belief in invisible god-spirits? Nothing, that's what, provided one is possessed of sufficient emotional fortitude.

Do you really wish to equate sex with food, tkatchev? Do you really want to imply that without sex, we will die?

Oh, dear, I've gone and admitted that sex is not an absolute requirement for continued existence. Dang, you've got me there, tkatchev. But does that do anything at all to mitigate the impact of sexual experience and understanding on the relative happiness of the individual? (Please, refrain from responding prior to comprehending the question).

Do I see the difference between love and lust? Of course I do. But! Can you see that embracing either one without the other, as the epitome of personal relations, amounts to a denial of self? Apparently not.

Go ahead, taktchev, and assume that your opponents have no emotional component to their relationships. I'm sure it's a comforting assumption.

However.

When someone initiates an argument that might reveal the fact that you have not had a satisifying relationship in recent years, due to your utter rejection of the import of any physical aspect, please, for the love of humanity, refrain from retreating to your laughably idiosycratic pseudo-christian catechisms when an adequate counter-argument is presented.

I am confident that I speak for many when I say: I look forward to the day when you continue your growth. You've been saying exactly the same thing for many years now, and the rest of us have been bored with it for quite a long time. Does this help, or are you stuck?

--One who only wants to help.


Re: (none / 0) (#21)
by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:33:10 AM PST
What the hell did anyone say about "sprititual" components of sex, tkatchev?

SpaceGhoti & company are; am I misreading something? If that is so, I am sorry. I thought the general idea was very clear.

Do I see the difference between love and lust? Of course I do. But! Can you see that embracing either one without the other, as the epitome of personal relations, amounts to a denial of self? Apparently not.

There is a time and place for everything. It is generally expected that a mother must love her children; however, lusting for your kids is a grave criminal offense in every society and culture. Really, the two are orthogonal. That's the point I'm making. Yes, if you want to raise a family you need parts of both in the right places. So what?

When someone initiates an argument that might reveal the fact that you have not had a satisifying relationship in recent years, due to your utter rejection of the import of any physical aspect, please, for the love of humanity, refrain from retreating to your laughably idiosycratic pseudo-christian catechisms when an adequate counter-argument is presented.

Where did you get that conclusion from? Besides, "relationship" does not mean "a person you fuck with". I have a relationship with my parents; that does not mean that I am an incestuous degenerate. Basic facts of life here, folks.

I am confident that I speak for many when I say: I look forward to the day when you continue your growth.

So am I. Like any normal human being. Thanks for the concern, though.


--
Peace and much love...




 
You're the only troll I see here. (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 09:02:32 PM PST
I followed a link to this site to an article regarding "hackers" and how to tell if your son is one by a friend of mine. I was aghast at the article, and how utterly foolish it was. It gave me a headache just trying to become brainless enough to comprehend how someone can be that far gone and NOT be in a mental institution.

Having surfed a few articles, I've seen that the company here, and the whole atmosphere, is VERY similar to those found in the hackers article. A bunch of inane idiots spouting off about things they know nothing about. You are a prime example of this.

To any others trying to contest or reason with this fool, I apologize if I have offended you. I did not intentionally lump you into the "Fools" category when describing the nature of this whole site. I was speaking more about the people like this gentleman, tkatchev.

And to tkatchev, you have some serious issues, my friend. You and alot of other people who create inane articles on this board. I don't particularly care what you have to say in response to my post, as I don't think I'll ever be coming back here. The sheer ignorance present in these articles has given me a migraine. I think I'm going to have to read the entire stock of my town's library to recover, and even then I'm worried that I may have been dealt severe brain damage from trying to dumb myself down enough to understand the minds of people like you. Beavuis & Butthead have more understand of the world than you. I weep for the future. I truly do.

Roland *The Gunslinger*


Rollo?! (none / 0) (#39)
by nathan on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 10:30:53 PM PST
It can't be the real Roland; it must be an imposter. Evidence:
  • The poster sounds like some kind of effeminate community-college "professor." The real Roland would have said something pithy, clever, and well-written (to the extent that S. King can muster it, which happens in streaks, to say the least.)
  • The poster calls his enemies "brainless." The real Roland is a creature of unified mind, body and spirit. As such, if he felt the need to ridicule somebody, he would do so by attacking his character rather than merely his intelligence. If attacking his opponent's intelligence was absolutely required, he would do it through a confrontation such as a contest of riddles, rather than spattering empty insults like poorly-formed spitwads.
  • The poster wastes adjectives (utterly aghast, as opposed to mildly aghast? Sheer ignorance, as opposed to the usual sort?) This kind of tin-eared rhetoric is anathema to the Gunslinger.
  • The true Roland didn't care much about hacker issues. He was more concerned with finding the Dark Tower.
  • The true Roland would never have misspelled 'Beavis,' because it is an ancient name that would be well-known to him through his study of heraldry and the history of the nobilty.
  • Sorry, folks, this Roland is a fraud. We will have to keep searching!

    Nathan (working late)
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    inelucatble calamity (none / 0) (#37)
    by johnny ambiguous on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 04:54:18 PM PST
    ...puberty should not be a disaster.

    You're either lying outright - and we all know Russians never lie - or you've gone deranged.

    I know, I know, it's all the IMF's fault. Thanks to them deliberately and systematically wrecking the Russian health-care system, you can't afford a psycho therapist. It's very sad! This is exactly why capitalism is so dreadful a thing.

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net


    Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

     
    Sir, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:44:40 PM PST
    As I ask all readers of this weblog who discuss women - do check her tag on her back. I do no like other men to get ahold of my female typists.

    If she is indeed my property (which very well may be likely), please reply to this message indicating your name, address and phone number. Somebody will arrive shortly to take her back into my custody.

    Thank you,


    --
    Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
    CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
    Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

     
    baggy clothing? (none / 0) (#5)
    by motherfuckin spork on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:19:55 PM PST
    like sweats or like burlap sacks?


    I am not who you think I am.

    clothes (none / 0) (#6)
    by First Incision on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 07:47:51 PM PST
    Like a loosely-fitting sweater and jeans that weren't particularly tight.
    _
    _
    Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

    Bad for business (none / 0) (#8)
    by because it isnt on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 07:59:09 PM PST
    Like a loosely-fitting sweater and jeans that weren't particularly tight.

    Tight clothes leave marks on the skin.

    It's the same with foot models - they generally get driven everywhere and wear fluffy socks and trainers, so you don't get that "just hiked a mountain" look on camera. Mmm.
    adequacy.org -- because it isn't

    good point (none / 0) (#9)
    by motherfuckin spork on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 08:02:25 PM PST
    never thought of that... not like I hang out with all that many models who do nudes, or foot models.

    I think a friend of mine from high school did some hand modeling, though...


    I am not who you think I am.

     
    Uh-huh (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by hauntedattics on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 07:56:34 AM PST
    I'll explain for you in one word - or is it two? -why your playmate friend looked better on the page than in real life. The word is "airbrushing."



     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.