Abigail Ratchford
- Thread starter worker
- Start date
good post
Your move, Charlotte McKinney.
are you really suggesting Abigail has done something "next level" or great by putting 1 picture out there with her exposed breasts covered in gold?
that's really all it takes to get guys off these days? not even real breasts but gold-covered ones? wow...
40% of these titty teasers on this forum never showed their bare tits (areola and nipples) this is a step up if you ask me.
if you think so, that's fine... i guess i just view it as another way to hide them... iMHO, it's still not really showing them simply to paint over the main area of interest...
I mean Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue does body paint in every issue, which is a completely nude woman covered in paint... nobody considers that nudity or goes after them for it, i mean hell... the magazine is sold in every chain store in America
I like titties. shrug
How would I (or anyone, really) go about doing that? I don't know who runs that site. I don't even know how you got that info. on him.
This is pretty good stuff, if I must say. Not the best ever, and not exactly what I (or we, should I say) was hoping for when she did a topless shot, but it's definitely pretty good.
I agree 100%. Like I said, not the best topless photo possible, but good nonetheless. Hell, it's way more than Denise Milani, Jordan Carver, and Wendy Fiore have ever done. I'd say it's worth buying the calendar and seeing what happens, it's not like the thing costs $100 or comes with a monthly subscription. If she takes the money and runs, oh well, don't buy her stuff next time. If she says, "Well, my career isn't ruined and my sales went up" maybe she'll do it again. Maybe she'll make things a little more clear (or a little more straightforward). I mean Hell, the other three models I named only give people an obscure hope that they might see something worth paying for, then take the money, and don't change a thing (i.e. no topless, no nipples). At least Abigail is delivering the goods beforehand. You know exactly what you're going to get before you buy it. Don't like it? Ok, don't buy it. But, don't sit here and complain that she didn't do a good enough job for you.
Here's the difference between this and SI: SI uses body paint, which is meant to be painted on well enough to look like clothing, to hide the goods completely. The is the illusion of clothing and even when it's not done all that well, which is never the case with SI, your brain will fill in the errors - that's just how the human brain works. This photo of Abigail Ratchford is basically her, topless, with a little gold paint (you can see her skin color still) in a vintage-style shoot. It looks like something that was taken in the 70s, yes, but still pretty good. It's clearly a topless shot which is supposed to be (meant to be) a topless shot. You could also argue that it's supposed to be artistic since its got that vintage look and to it (that, I would say, was not done all too well, however). So you have Abigail's photo which is clearly a topless photo, and you're comparing it to an SI swimsuit body paint photo? The best you'll get with those is a picture that looks like the model is wearing tight clothes and has hard nipples. They are nowhere near as defined and clearly topless as this one. You be the judge:
SI Swimsuit Edition:
Abigail Ratchford as Cleopatra:
How would I (or anyone, really) go about doing that? I don't know who runs that site. I don't even know how you got that info. on him.
This is pretty good stuff, if I must say. Not the best ever, and not exactly what I (or we, should I say) was hoping for when she did a topless shot, but it's definitely pretty good.
I agree 100%. Like I said, not the best topless photo possible, but good nonetheless. Hell, it's way more than Denise Milani, Jordan Carver, and Wendy Fiore have ever done. I'd say it's worth buying the calendar and seeing what happens, it's not like the thing costs $100 or comes with a monthly subscription. If she takes the money and runs, oh well, don't buy her stuff next time. If she says, "Well, my career isn't ruined and my sales went up" maybe she'll do it again. Maybe she'll make things a little more clear (or a little more straightforward). I mean Hell, the other three models I named only give people an obscure hope that they might see something worth paying for, then take the money, and don't change a thing (i.e. no topless, no nipples). At least Abigail is delivering the goods beforehand. You know exactly what you're going to get before you buy it. Don't like it? Ok, don't buy it. But, don't sit here and complain that she didn't do a good enough job for you.
Here's the difference between this and SI: SI uses body paint, which is meant to be painted on well enough to look like clothing, to hide the goods completely. The is the illusion of clothing and even when it's not done all that well, which is never the case with SI, your brain will fill in the errors - that's just how the human brain works. This photo of Abigail Ratchford is basically her, topless, with a little gold paint (you can see her skin color still) in a vintage-style shoot. It looks like something that was taken in the 70s, yes, but still pretty good. It's clearly a topless shot which is supposed to be (meant to be) a topless shot. You could also argue that it's supposed to be artistic since its got that vintage look and to it (that, I would say, was not done all too well, however). So you have Abigail's photo which is clearly a topless photo, and you're comparing it to an SI swimsuit body paint photo? The best you'll get with those is a picture that looks like the model is wearing tight clothes and has hard nipples. They are nowhere near as defined and clearly topless as this one. You be the judge:
SI Swimsuit Edition:
Abigail Ratchford as Cleopatra:
My point is simply this: classifying Abigail's shot as a topless show in the real sense of the word is very misleading and if her fans over-react to its "greatness" then the same fans who want her to do a real nude/topless shoot "Playboy style" will never get it.
There is simply no reason for her or any model to post in such a manner if people keep going nuts over the content they already produce. If the fame, popularity and money keeps rolling in for cleavage or painted nipples she has no incentive to do anything else. And that's the point with her and this new generation of Instagram models.
Guys complain about how none of them will ever do a nude/topless shoot yet suck up the clothes/bikini/painted/hand bra photos like there's no tomorrow, leaving a model zero incentive to do what they complain about and desire in the first place.
As I said before, is the gold boob photo nice? Sure. It's a step in the right direction I suppose. But if everyone worships it and acts like it's the greats boob photo ever just because it's the most she's shown, than she'll never show us the holy grail as we all hope and want.
Please note, we do not tolerate piracy or sharing of paid content here at FreeOnes. Pay for your porn and support your girls!
I am also readying my copy of kumbaya, so everyone be nice. Or else, I play it.
I am also readying my copy of kumbaya, so everyone be nice. Or else, I play it.
THANK YOU!
The mere fact that one guy asked for free photos of a calendar she made to make money and another had the nerve to reply to me with some form of anger/disappointment and leave me negative reputation points really angers me.
any reason why you feel this way? I hope you're right, just curious as to why you suddenly believe this...
I am still unsure considering she is making good money teasing the hell out of her boobs and doing high-end escorting on the side...
Even right now, she's staying in some mansion in London and pretty sure it's with a very rich man paying her for the week.
Skateboard P
Now dats nutty!
random IG pics:
http://www.boobieblog.com/?p=48945
http://www.boobieblog.com/?p=48945
