Fascination with boring photos

[billybunter]

Originally Posted by electile disfunction

Explains all what?

That lots of members like the pics

[MaxJoker]

Originally Posted by billybunter

That lots of members like the pics

Ssssssh don't tell him the obvious double B, you`ll only baffle the poor lad even more

[NIN]

billyb, you could well be on to something

Guilty of this gratuitous offence

... but I couldn't agree with [COLOR=#004B00 !important]GS [/COLOR]more, (i'd have liked to have gone to drama school too ) Images that fall somewhere between softcore & casual glimpses fascinate me and personally, hardcore has a place but leaves nowhere for my imagination to run.

I don't disagree with you e.d. a run of pictures of a celeb walking whether on a red carpet or in a bikini can be a disappointment, especially if you were expecting it to be a full frontal in every post - i'd say, best lower your expectations in the celebs forum.

I've mentioned in another similar thread, that I'm not very often gonna choose which pix in a set aren't worthy of posting - it's up to the viewer what glance/look/sideboob/bumshot/ankle [COLOR=white !important].... ..[/COLOR]..ankle!?

-shrugs- it takes all sorts & i wouldn't call anyone for their thang.

i guess an honest answer is ... I'm a lazy sod and i can check if a photo taken in the last day or two is already posted relatively easier than trawling thru 19 pages for dupes

Not that i don't have to when an old photoshoot turns up

Also I can't explain why during looking at a nice photoshoot.. I get distracted by technology in the background.
It can provide a rough guage to the era the shoot may have taken place

or make me go .. I used to have one of those

totally ignoring the model displaying her goods

thing is.., i dunno what might interest me

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by electile disfunction

I am not complaining ... I would just like to know what they find interesting.

Its neurologic.

We've got incredible sensory apparatus for face recognition. Its "built in" -- we see faces even when they're not there (eg "the man in the moon").

What celebrity does is self-reinforcing, as you become familiar with a face, you get a little dose of pleasure from seeing it again. I suspect that if you did functional MRI on folks as they were viewing photos of say, Sandra Bullock or Meg Ryan, you'd get the same bits of grey matter lighting up as when a kid sees Mom.

This argues that celebrity can be manufactured and is self-reinforcing, that is, any reasonably pretty girl can be "made famous because she is famous".

I often marvel at the fact that so many "stars" are really no better looking than your average pretty girl, but are perceived so differently. The more you see them, the better they look. By that argument, there's a kind of mutual interest between viewers and celebrities . . . viewers want to see more, and the star gains by being seen more.

[rotobott]

Or people fancy the characters they portray, and have biological needs to fap off over images of them

[billybunter]

Lets just let this one go by saying one man's ceiling is another man's floor Thanks to Paul Simon for that line.

[pharoahegypt]

I myself have expressed issues I have with seeing threads filled with clothed pictures that don't portray the word 'erotic' in any way or shape... imho

I've even gone to the extreme of messaging said posters; but then I suppose we have to put up with the 'chaff', in return to also see the odd memorable image that they also post; and that we ourselves cannot locate elsewhere.

As much as I hate these clothed shots; I will continue to put up with them; (more silently than I have or ill be banned again) so long as the other valued shots appear from time to time. They more than make up for the lost time opening threads with endless fully clothed pix (celebs just out shopping, etc); again, only IMHO.

oh, and BB...... paul simon's lyrics usually suck... but i do love "If I can call you Betty, then you can call me Al..!" classic. lol.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by pharoahegypt

I myself have expressed issues I have with seeing threads filled with clothed pictures that don't portray the word 'erotic' in any way or shape... imho

Well, you're not a fetishist then. Me, I think some of the hottest pix are clothed . . . there's a thread on this board devoted to girls in sweaters that really does have some wonderful thrills -- if its "your thing", if its not, well there's plenty of other stuff for you.

There are guys who love shoes, guys who love sweaters, guys who love gloves.

Faces are different, though-- they're not a fetish, they're instinctive. You can find bits in babies' brains that light up when a face appears, long before other aspects of vision develop, and there's a good reason for that, smiling for their mom helps keeps babies fed.

[electile disfunction]

Originally Posted by GreenSkull

Don`t get me wrong i`m not crazy about seeing 50 images more or less virtually the same . But if it`s an actress i like then yes i wouldn`t mind seeing a dozen snaps of her enjoying earths frozen bounty , even if she was wearing a winter parka.

I mean just imagine the nips on her

Um ...
But in these instances there are no nips, GreenSkull, or modelling, or 'enjoyment' for that matter. Just people in plain everyday clothes, doing everyday things, photographed (likely) by paprazzi. Much like the boring-class of holiday photos.

(And, although I don't think this matters, there are usually more than a dozen pics in these sets.)

Originally Posted by NIN

... but I couldn't agree with GS more, (i'd have liked to have gone to drama school too ) Images that fall somewhere between softcore & casual glimpses fascinate me and personally, hardcore has a place but leaves nowhere for my imagination to run.

I don't disagree with you e.d. a run of pictures of a celeb walking whether on a red carpet or in a bikini can be a disappointment, especially if you were expecting it to be a full frontal in every post - i'd say, best lower your expectations in the celebs forum.

-shrugs- it takes all sorts & i wouldn't call anyone for their thang.

... Also I can't explain why during looking at a nice photoshoot.. I get distracted by technology in the background.

... totally ignoring the model displaying her goods

I agree with you, too, NIN (and I even get distracted like you, too ).

I know I am not expecting any type of 'core' when I am at VEF or anywhere else, and clothes certainly do not make excellent (or hideous) photos. But, keeping in mind what I reminded GS above, what is the enjoyment in a never ending profusion of ... unremarkable(?) or workaday(?) photos?

Don't forget that any person can become bored with the most erotic and/or beautiful things if there is sufficient quantity of them.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Its neurologic.

... This argues that celebrity can be manufactured and is self-reinforcing, that is, any reasonably pretty girl can be "made famous because she is famous".

I often marvel at the fact that so many "stars" are really no better looking than your average pretty girl, but are perceived so differently. The more you see them, the better they look. By that argument, there's a kind of mutual interest between viewers and celebrities . . . viewers want to see more, and the star gains by being seen more.

Thank you. This is a very intriguing idea!

Originally Posted by rotobott

Or people fancy the characters they portray, and have biological needs to fap off over images of them

Yes, but these photos aren't taken when the people are "in character". In most cases they might as well be photographed during the third hour of a very boring traffic jam. (shrug)

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Well, you're not a fetishist then. Me, I think some of the hottest pix are clothed . . . there's a thread on this board devoted to girls in sweaters that really does have some wonderful thrills -- if its "your thing", if its not, well there's plenty of other stuff for you.

Again, with most of these pictures, a person with the appropriate fetish could get all the benefits by watching out their window and save on their utility bills, too!

Originally Posted by billybunter

... one man's ceiling is another man's floor Thanks to Paul Simon for that line.

Some object to the fan dancer ... Others object to the fan.

e.d.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by electile disfunction

Again, with most of these pictures, a person with the appropriate fetish could get all the benefits by watching out their window and save on their utility bills, too!

Who says I don't?

Originally Posted by electile disfunction

Some object to the fan dancer ... Others object to the fan.

e.d.

Great line!