HOT + SEXY + nsfw

[Hannibał]

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it's pretty clear it's neither hot nor sexy, nor is it, I suspect, entirely anatomically plausible.

Also, on a more general note...

Ewwwwww.

[Symmetry]

The other two picture you posted, Hannibal, are clearly of nude women. I think you skirted the boundaries with that first pic as she was wearing some items of clothing, but you may well have pushed the boundaries a bit too far by posting completely naked women.

I would remind you of the community guidelines on this issue:

Nudity and Pornography are not allowed.

Try to keep it clean- it's not like there's a shortage of pretty girls in bikinis, so there really is no need to post fully naked women.

[Robinette]

is this really the best butt ?

she looks familiar...

and what city is that?
it's on a rooftop... with variegated mockoranges...
London perhaps? yep, definitely in the UK with those buildings...

omigod, "best butt?", lol...

it's Carol Voderman, Winner of the "Rear Of The Year" award...

[Hannibał]

Rear of the year? Maybe in London, but I can walk the neighborhood and see dozens of better ones. Those judges need smacked, and how old is she? Christ

[Robinette]

Rear of the year? Maybe in London, but I can walk the neighborhood and see dozens of better ones. Those judges need smacked, and how old is she? Christ

Hey hey hey,,, have some respect...

That's a 50 year old toochie right there,
and she's really REALLY smart with Math...
Smart enough to not care what YOU think, lol...

Here's a few more pics of her,









and finally... carol with her daughter...

[cyrenius]

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it's pretty clear it's neither hot nor sexy, nor is it, I suspect, entirely anatomically plausible.

Also, on a more general note...

Ewwwwww.

Ewwwwww? are you crazy?
More like yuuuuumy

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it's pretty clear it's neither hot nor sexy, nor is it, I suspect, entirely anatomically plausible.

Also, on a more general note...

Ewwwwww.

Ewwwwww? are you crazy?
More like yuuuuumy

A poorly photo-shopped pole dancer who looks like she's having a rectal prolapse is not my idea of yummy, crazy as I am. I think it's pretty crude to judge women by external features, but I generally appreciate women for what's on the inside, like their personalities and the walls of their rectum.

[Pirlo]

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it's pretty clear it's neither hot nor sexy, nor is it, I suspect, entirely anatomically plausible.

Also, on a more general note...

Ewwwwww.

Ewwwwww? are you crazy?
More like yuuuuumy

A poorly photo-shopped pole dancer who looks like she's having a rectal prolapse is not my idea of yummy, crazy as I am. I think it's pretty crude to judge women by external features, but I generally appreciate women for what's on the inside, like their personalities and the walls of their rectum.

seriously, I fail to see her "sexy".. she's ugly like f*ck.

[Sackett58]

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it's pretty clear it's neither hot nor sexy, nor is it, I suspect, entirely anatomically plausible.

Also, on a more general note...

Ewwwwww.

Ewwwwww? are you crazy?
More like yuuuuumy

A poorly photo-shopped pole dancer who looks like she's having a rectal prolapse is not my idea of yummy, crazy as I am. I think it's pretty crude to judge women by external features, but I generally appreciate women for what's on the inside, like their personalities and the walls of their rectum.

seriously, I fail to see her "sexy".. she's ugly like f*ck.

Ah come on Pirlo. Everybody has a different taste in alcohol also. To some, some go down better than others.

[Ace Rimmer]

And some don't go down at all

Oh wait you were talking about alcohol

[Pirlo]

And some don't go down at all

Oh wait you were talking about alcohol

[Sackett58]

And some don't go down at all

Oh wait you were talking about alcohol

Of course I'm talking about alcohol.

[Hannibał]

Haha I was going more for the pose, then the women in the first picture. The 2nd is Stacy Dash, best known from clueless, why isn't anyone quoting the good pictures lol.

Also that english lady looks MUCH better after makeup artists do their thing with her, way to make me feel like a jerk..but her ass still looks like a half cooked pancake

[Symmetry]

Haha I was going more for the pose, then the women in the first picture. The 2nd is Stacy Dash, best known from clueless, why isn't anyone quoting the good pictures lol.

Also that english lady looks MUCH better after makeup artists do their thing with her, way to make me feel like a jerk..but her ass still looks like a half cooked pancake

Possibly because the "good pictures" violate the guidelines of the forum.

Guidelines

Any images of pornographic activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.

And let's face it- those are images of nudity. No two ways about it- those are pictures of nude women. The guidelines are very clear that any such images are not allowed. You should consider removing them.

[anonymus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwuWxgpG ... tu.be&hd=1

ass in mirror at 00:17

/

[MeDeFe]

Haha I was going more for the pose, then the women in the first picture. The 2nd is Stacy Dash, best known from clueless, why isn't anyone quoting the good pictures lol.

Also that english lady looks MUCH better after makeup artists do their thing with her, way to make me feel like a jerk..but her ass still looks like a half cooked pancake

Possibly because the "good pictures" violate the guidelines of the forum.

Guidelines

Any images of pornographic activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.

And let's face it- those are images of nudity. No two ways about it- those are pictures of nude women. The guidelines are very clear that any such images are not allowed. You should consider removing them.

The nipples, the genitals and the anus are not visible, that means she's not nude, even though she's not wearing any clothes.

[Hannibał]

Melissa Ford ↑


↑Leah Remini, King of Queens


↑Misty May, The best thing to happen to volleyball since sand.

[Tisha]

[Hannibał]

Who's that 2nd picture? Wow. Most can't pull off the flourescent hair.

[JoshyBoy]

Who's that 2nd picture?

Looks suspiciously like my mate Ray's ex-girlfriend. She cheated on him with some guy she met at University... slag.

The weirest bit of the story? I "went out" with that same girl in pre-school.

[Symmetry]

Haha I was going more for the pose, then the women in the first picture. The 2nd is Stacy Dash, best known from clueless, why isn't anyone quoting the good pictures lol.

Also that english lady looks MUCH better after makeup artists do their thing with her, way to make me feel like a jerk..but her ass still looks like a half cooked pancake

Possibly because the "good pictures" violate the guidelines of the forum.

Guidelines

Any images of pornographic activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.

And let's face it- those are images of nudity. No two ways about it- those are pictures of nude women. The guidelines are very clear that any such images are not allowed. You should consider removing them.

The nipples, the genitals and the anus are not visible, that means she's not nude, even though she's not wearing any clothes.

I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not, but not wearing any clothes is pretty much the definition of being nude. I've had a brief chat with Moderator RD and it has been pointed out that the basic intention of that guideline is to prevent the posting of pornography. I completely accept that, and while I think that post was mildly pornographic, I can see why others would not.

There are no "nipples, areola, genitals, anuses visible", and while there is an abundance of the "etc" that can be said about many of the pictures on this thread.

I am sort of fascinated by this particular definition of nudity though. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? If a naked women turns her back to you is she no longer naked?

Change the guidelines.

[radiojake]

I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not, but not wearing any clothes is pretty much the definition of being nude. I've had a brief chat with Moderator RD and it has been pointed out that the basic intention of that guideline is to prevent the posting of pornography. I completely accept that, and while I think that post was mildly pornographic, I can see why others would not.

There are no "nipples, areola, genitals, anuses visible", and while there is an abundance of the "etc" that can be said about many of the pictures on this thread.

I am sort of fascinated by this particular definition of nudity though. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? If a naked women turns her back to you is she no longer naked?

Change the guidelines.

Already highlighted the hypocrisy about this thread two years ago

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... Y#p2312291

mod edit

It's pretty retarded that the line is drawn at 'exposed nipple' - half of the pics in the thread show everything but - I'm not saying it shouldn't have been edited, I just find the line between whats acceptable and whats not to be so thin that it's laughable

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not, but not wearing any clothes is pretty much the definition of being nude. I've had a brief chat with Moderator RD and it has been pointed out that the basic intention of that guideline is to prevent the posting of pornography. I completely accept that, and while I think that post was mildly pornographic, I can see why others would not.

There are no "nipples, areola, genitals, anuses visible", and while there is an abundance of the "etc" that can be said about many of the pictures on this thread.

I am sort of fascinated by this particular definition of nudity though. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? If a naked women turns her back to you is she no longer naked?

Change the guidelines.

Already highlighted the hypocrisy about this thread two years ago

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... Y#p2312291

mod edit

It's pretty retarded that the line is drawn at 'exposed nipple' - half of the pics in the thread show everything but - I'm not saying it shouldn't have been edited, I just find the line between whats acceptable and whats not to be so thin that it's laughable

I think the guidelines should be changed, they're kind of ambiguous on the "no nudity" front if some nudity is allowed. But I'm a little fed up with this thread. I don't wanna argue with all of these people en mass when they want to debate but don't feel willing to respond beyond anything more than "I don't like your pictures". It honestly seems like some people are just debating en mass and hoping that will carry their point by virtue of mutual mass debating rather than any particular poster going into any kind of detailed argument.

I don't wanna huge argument, but some people are clearly posting on this thread that wanna mass debate over Hot/Sexy/NSFW pics.

Me? I'm a saint.

[MeDeFe]

Haha I was going more for the pose, then the women in the first picture. The 2nd is Stacy Dash, best known from clueless, why isn't anyone quoting the good pictures lol.

Also that english lady looks MUCH better after makeup artists do their thing with her, way to make me feel like a jerk..but her ass still looks like a half cooked pancake

Possibly because the "good pictures" violate the guidelines of the forum.

Guidelines

Any images of pornographic activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.

And let's face it- those are images of nudity. No two ways about it- those are pictures of nude women. The guidelines are very clear that any such images are not allowed. You should consider removing them.

The nipples, the genitals and the anus are not visible, that means she's not nude, even though she's not wearing any clothes.

I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not, but not wearing any clothes is pretty much the definition of being nude. I've had a brief chat with Moderator RD and it has been pointed out that the basic intention of that guideline is to prevent the posting of pornography. I completely accept that, and while I think that post was mildly pornographic, I can see why others would not.

There are no "nipples, areola, genitals, anuses visible", and while there is an abundance of the "etc" that can be said about many of the pictures on this thread.

I am sort of fascinated by this particular definition of nudity though. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? If a naked women turns her back to you is she no longer naked?

Change the guidelines.

In my opinion the guidelines regarding nudity/pornography are fine as they are, no nipples/areola, no anuses, no genitals. There's a clear line that's not to be crossed, hardly any room at all for interpretation, and still a lot of freedom to post hot and sexy images. A forum guideline can hardly get any better.

If you want me to I can start an internal TeamCC discussion about pornography and nudity on your behalf, though.