lisy78
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #13 · Favor for the little sister... | |
ksmahgrts wrote:
brandonwong wrote:
ksmahgrts: Actually, reading your post made me a little bit uncomfortable. I'm not going to lie there's a lot of perverted thoughts going on in your mind.
haha perverted? seriously? if anything, you could call my reaction chaste - even prudish, but perverted? that's just silly.
brandonwong wrote: Why does everything have to do with sex when you look at these pictures?
not everything has to do with sex when i look at these. i told you specifically the numbers that i find to be overtly physical. the fact that you told us they were high school kids makes me think i would have shot a few where they weren't pressed against each other. forgive me, i spent 10+ years in education and doubt there are a lot of parents who would be completely comfy with the way you've captured these.
brandonwong wrote:If I had not told you if they were in highschool then would they still look like they're going off to some seedy hotel?
yes. the neon sign reminds me of a motel and the stairs leading into a long hall of doors also reminds me of a motel - or apartment complex. but not many apartment complexes have giant neon signs. (yes i can see now that is says something about jazz& fondue (?) - but initial impression = motel)
brandonwong wrote:Who goes to seedy hotels in highschool anyways?
hopefully no one - ok, well just the sleazy kids.
brandonwong wrote:His face is brushing against her leg in #2 what's risque about that?
there is nothing inherently risque about it. again - combined with your other images and the fact that these are high school students, i don't find this to be a particularly appropriate pose. what's her dad think of it?
brandonwong wrote:I guess if they truly evoke a sense of teenage sensuality for you
darkness. contrasty light. 2 people inches away from kissing. what was the "sense" you were going for?
brandonwong wrote:then that's your opinion and I'll respect that.
thanks. you asked for an opinion, i gave one. again, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the images - and i'm certainly no prude or pervert. i just think you could have found poses that better suit their personalities and relationship that were more age appropriate.
 ... this is too funny. Just a few observations:
1. re: perverted vs. chaste or prudish. Chaste or prudish to me is when you see someone kissing and think it's bad. When you see someone leaning their face against a knee ... and you're noticing how there is a line of sight between the dude and the damsel's beaver ... you're being a bit of a perv (where's J Clay when you need a good image?)
2. I totally agree that some/many/most parents would be uncomfortable with some/many of these... that being said while I haven't been in education I have been in High school and you can rest assured that 95% of my and most of my friends' interest in having a girlfriend was unrelated to the pursuits of philosophy, gaining the insights afforded by having a female to bounce our ideas with, etc... it was all about making out and maybe some more making out. Yeah of course we wanted to go beyond making out but that wasn't in the cards with any frequency. Heck I'm surprised none of the photos featured lil sister and her dude frenchkissing... the set was positively chaste and likely a totally idillic representation of their actual relationship.
As the dad of a 3.5 year old amazing little woman I will say that I don't look forward to those years at all  ... and that if she and some jacka$$ she has the nerve to parade around as her boyfriend got photos like those I'd get copies so that I can live in the illusion that THAT is all that's going on. Ignorance is bliss and I love bliss
3. It appears that you have a lot of experience identifying motels. Which tells me that you probably ... like to travel a lot. Me too! Traveling rocks
4. This is all in good fun. I have no problem with your initial response or your followup... I thought they were funny ... you surely sexed up the thread 
|
?
