dgold wrote:
...I would have revolving avatar photos:
                                    ALL 18+

Revolving AVI's would be cool no matter what rating!

Attollo-Validus wrote:
Knowing and supporting the reasons why MM does not allow 18+ AVIs, what would be your AVI if given the chance?

Very cool that you considered the disclaimer for the 18+ avatars!

If we wouldn't have that restriction, I would definetly chose this one:

https://img2.modelmayhem.com/050831/22/ … bd1086.jpg

Careful, the person in that avatar is 18+!

UdoR wrote:

Very cool that you considered the disclaimer for the 18+ avatars!

If we wouldn't have that restriction, I would definetly chose this one:

https://img2.modelmayhem.com/050831/22/ … bd1086.jpg

Careful, the person in that avatar is 18+!

Too Funny!  I know that you have a few Artistic Shots!

Attollo-Validus wrote:
Knowing and supporting the reasons why MM does not allow 18+ AVIs, what would be your AVI if given the chance?

Reminder: only the Link and not the Pic in the Form!!  Trying not to get this one shut down.

Mine:
https://img4.modelmayhem.com/061008/12/ … f68ef5.jpg

later,

Love this pose, shot and model, Attollo.

Attollo-Validus wrote:

Too Funny!  I know that you have a few Artistic Shots!

UdoR...aw, I think a butt shot would suit you.
Ya know, a mirror reflection you could shoot.

UdoR wrote:

Very cool that you considered the disclaimer for the 18+ avatars!

If we wouldn't have that restriction, I would definetly chose this one:

https://img2.modelmayhem.com/050831/22/ … bd1086.jpg

Careful, the person in that avatar is 18+!

Rossi Photography wrote:
If in a nude photo the nipples are covered by the model's hair, would it be allowed as an avatar?

Hmm, is there a Moderator in the House? Lol

Attollo-Validus wrote:
Knowing and supporting the reasons why MM does not allow 18+ AVIs, what would be your AVI if given the chance?

Reminder: only the Link and not the Pic in the Form!!  Trying not to get this one shut down.

Mine:
https://img4.modelmayhem.com/061008/12/ … f68ef5.jpg

later,

Love your new choise of AVI. Very powerful. Here's mine..
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1586291

Mike

Attollo-Validus wrote:
TSOJAW,

  That Pic would get some attention, Great Shot!

Thanks for the Comment
Dgold

Well thank you.  But if you could steal another persons images for an avi, I'd make this one of the first major thefts. https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1446927

I love your work.

Mike Walker wrote:

Love your new choise of AVI. Very powerful. Here's mine..
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1586291

Mike

Yes.  Great selection Mike.

Mike Walker wrote:
Love your new choise of AVI. Very powerful. Here's mine..
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1586291

Mike

I love that image, Mike. I think mine would be...

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1631715

Attollo-Validus wrote:
Knowing and supporting the reasons why MM does not allow 18+ AVIs, what would be your AVI if given the chance?

Reminder: only the Link and not the Pic in the Form!!  Trying not to get this one shut down.

Mine:
https://img4.modelmayhem.com/061008/12/ … f68ef5.jpg

later,

That pic is HOT - However, the one you have currently is superior.
What about mine?


https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1638805

...

00siris wrote:
That pic is HOT - However, the one you have currently is superior.
What about mine?



https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1638805

...

I like that. But wouldnt it still be allowed as an avi now?

Lora wrote:

Hey, I've seen your work - I'm a fan - BIG fan

Attollo-Validus wrote:
Knowing and supporting the reasons why MM does not allow 18+ AVIs, what would be your AVI if given the chance?

Reminder: only the Link and not the Pic in the Form!!  Trying not to get this one shut down.

Mine:
https://img4.modelmayhem.com/061008/12/ … f68ef5.jpg

later,

Rossi Photography wrote:
If in a nude photo the nipples are covered by the model's hair, would it be allowed as an avatar?

I don't know, but I had this up yesterday and one of the mods flagged it as 18+ and there are no nipples showing
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1630274
Not sure since when the bottom of a woman's breast has been 18+.

David Birdsong wrote:

I don't know, but I had this up yesterday and one of the mods flagged it as 18+ and there are no nipples showing
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1630274
Not sure since when the bottom of a woman's breast has been 18+.

There seems to almost be a hint of nipple showing. Maybe that's the reason? Otherwise I really couldn't tell you - I really do like that shot!

Rossi Photography wrote:
If in a nude photo the nipples are covered by the model's hair, would it be allowed as an avatar?

What if you photoshop some nipples from a guy over top of the female's nipples? Since male nipples aren't nasty and icky then it'd be OK, right?

mjr.

David Birdsong wrote:
Not sure since when the bottom of a woman's breast has been 18+.

It's considered naughty based on the ratio of the aureola to the size of the nipple, divided by the nipple depth and cup size times a constant, measured at a chord tangential to the aureola. That value gives the distance along the chord of naughtiness and if you expose areas of the boob within the radius of naughtiness it's 18+ otherwise it is not. That's why hand-bra shots are generally OK, because they break the ratio up into a complex function and it's too hard to calculate accurately.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

What if you photoshop some nipples from a guy over top of the female's nipples? Since male nipples aren't nasty and icky then it'd be OK, right?

mjr.

rotflmao - you have a point.
....

https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1638805
...

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

It's considered naughty based on the ratio of the aureola to the size of the nipple, divided by the nipple depth and cup size times a constant, measured at a chord tangential to the aureola. That value gives the distance along the chord of naughtiness and if you expose areas of the boob within the radius of naughtiness it's 18+ otherwise it is not. That's why hand-bra shots are generally OK, because they break the ratio up into a complex function and it's too hard to calculate accurately.

mjr.

ahhh, but his pic had nothing to do with the tangential aureola - he miss the seacant rule

Lora wrote:
When we have a protest and demand to see the whole female boob without discrimination, I know you'll lead us all.

Lead? Naaah, but I'll come do photographs of the march on capitol hill, when the b(o)(o)bie liberation army, 100,000 strong, make their move!

I keep meaning to get a shot of myself, shirtless, in the same pose as one of my models, so I can photoshop my hairy man-teats over top of hers and replace her nasty icky b(o)(o)bies with mine, seeing as how the church and state somehow think mine are OK but hers aren't.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
the b(o)(o)bie liberation army

I saw U say "b(0)(o)bies" and that got my attenshin!!! Is this 4 real? When is the march gonna happen?  Lora R U gonna be there? I would totally go and take pictures! That'd be SLAMMIN!

GWC!

GWC wrote:

I saw U say "b(0)(o)bies" and that got my attenshin!!! Is this 4 real? When is the march gonna happen?  Lora R U gonna be there? I would totally go and take pictures! That'd be SLAMMIN!

GWC!

I actually got "picked on" yesterday for having small boobies by a girl with huge implants who claimed they were really real. I wish you were there to defend me! Although she did manage to look like an idiot all by her own doing.

David Birdsong wrote:

I don't know, but I had this up yesterday and one of the mods flagged it as 18+ and there are no nipples showing
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1630274
Not sure since when the bottom of a woman's breast has been 18+.

Mine's a bit similar, only her hair falls over her breasts covering the nipples. I've seen others that show more used as avatars, though. I dunno'... I'll stay on the safe side and just stick with the one I'm using, I guess. Lol...

Lora wrote:
There seems to almost be a hint of nipple showing. Maybe that's the reason? Otherwise I really couldn't tell you - I really do like that shot!

Actually the nipple isn't even close to showing in that pic... I know, I cropped it a lot...

BTW, I like it a lot too.. thanks for your comment about liking it

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

It's considered naughty based on the ratio of the aureola to the size of the nipple, divided by the nipple depth and cup size times a constant, measured at a chord tangential to the aureola. That value gives the distance along the chord of naughtiness and if you expose areas of the boob within the radius of naughtiness it's 18+ otherwise it is not. That's why hand-bra shots are generally OK, because they break the ratio up into a complex function and it's too hard to calculate accurately.

mjr.

Okay now I am really confused...