This slut believes she is an artsy model, and not a whore. Let's show her what we think of her by fapping to her pics

This slut believes she is an artsy model, and not a whore. Let's show her what we think of her by fapping to her pics

what went wrong in your life?

Idk it is pretty artsy too

Does that mean there isn't a video of a dick getting shoved in her?

Yeah. The primary purpose of these pics is art.

Getting turned down is not the end of the world OP.

I think you need to reevaluate your life choices and go for girls that are more in your reach.

Pic related: its the kind of girl that is more your speed.

Sadly, no.

So, she was a model before you started dating her. You got hold of the pics.

You dated for 1 year, then she dumped you for some dude living in mexico.

You'll heal OP. You're just frustrated.

I hit my head when I was young.

How did you know?

Because it's a pattern I'm familiar with.

Hotter than anything you'll ever be in the same zip code with

Yes, she is hot. That doesn't make her less of a slut.

Keep posting her, OP. Soon this hatred will be out of your system.

Who is it?

Do you think she's purely artistic, and not a whore?

Nah. As I said before, this is a pattern I know all too well. These "artsy" girls are generally whores.

They won't stop being whores because you're mad, though.

She is a slut. For everyone to fap.

bump

Do you think this is art? Or fap material?

mostly it makes me want to fap
but it is more aesthetic than straight porn
I guess it's porn for a certain kind of person

But is it more art or more porn?

More art, certainly.

Her names Helga Lovekaty for anyone curious

More of an art than porn.

porn for me, at least...i fuckin came in my pants...

You seem to have the answer of knowing the difference between the two. So why is Playboy pornography?

Perfect tits. Those are definitely artistic

She might think she is a fancy model. But effectively she's just ass and a pair of boobs, for everyone to fap.

Because "pornography" sells.

Playboy is a magazine for the masses. It would not reach the success it has if it was sold as "art."

bump. anymore pics?

I would call this art not porn

Admiring her beauty, not trying to see her innards

I can see how one is for the greater masses and one is for, well...less than that. There are art pieces that sell for much higher prices than something like pornography. How would you justify that?

Are you enjoying the artistic composition... or something else?

The masses can't acquire art this expensive, can they?

There's your explanation.

"Art" is mostly a label. Label one picture "porn" and it'll sell to the masses. Label the same picture "art" and another type of client will look for it.

In most cases, the masses give a bigger profit than a rich client. You can only sell a piece of art once. Porn? This one you can sell forever.

It's fine if you're butthurt over something she did. But at most that's softcore or erotica. Hell, she isn't even being provocative. Mostly, on her pictures, you can appreciate her beauty, not her sex drive. Sorry pal. That's art.

...

What about digital replications like the ones posted here? No one is paying for anything. And someone could make an graphic image a nude person out free will and to share with others here. How would go about labeling the difference in creation and distribution of those two elements which are both freely done?

That's where technicalities and the intention behind the work come into place.

I'd say the intention weights more than the technicalities, since the last are highly subjective.

It's obvious these pictures were not made for pornographic purposes. The naked body, in itself, is not pornography. Pornography requires the specific intention and drive of stimulating the audience through sexual acts.

Even though Helga is certainly attractive and might arouse one or two boners, in the end this is not the intention of the picture's creation.

It's more appreciation for beauty standards than for sexual acts.

Fair enough. Could one, like an artist or photographer, try to get by simply by labeling one the other thing and deceive the audience? Who would determine whether or not the artist is lying if they're intention is something else?

One or two boners is surely an understatement.

>Could one, like an artist or photographer, try to get by simply by labeling one the other thing and deceive the audience?

More or less. See those "paintings" where the frame has nothing in it, and gets called art? That's a scam.

You have to be smart enough to deceive the rich. Once the elite is deceived, the masses have little arguments against you.

>Who would determine whether or not the artist is lying if they're intention is something else?

By being well-spoken. A well-spoken individual can sell air to rich people.

A cunning mind won't let that slip, however. But that's ONE cunning mind.

Sauce?

Makes sense. I think I get it.