nuts

[JamesW]

Dickie Davies wrote:

> Hope Zoo keeps going.


It's a question of when it closes not if.

[Bill Malone]

I never understood those magazines. If you want to look at naked girls, why would you choose to only look at her partially clothed? Surely you would buy a magazine where you can see her fanny?

[Paul L]

There is still a massive market for guys (and girls) that don't want to see what the girl has had for dinner with her legs wide open - but for lots to be left to the imagination

We still get complaints from members there is too much topless on our site!! So each to their own

[rastansaga]

I agree with Paul above.

Though our sites have pretty mucky content, I much prefer a sexy girl in (and getting out of) sexy attire, than straight-to-muff gyno-time.

But yes, each to their own indeed.

[dynamatiques]

Paul L wrote:

>... that don't
> want to see what the girl has had for dinner with her legs wide
> open...


That is one of the most repulsive & completely inaccurate statements that anyone can make.

As soon as one model mentioned it about ten years ago, I just dropped all contact. Thick & yuck!

Another model mentioned that during a shoot a few years back as well. Once I mentioned that I would either need to either make her vomit, or stick an endoscope up somewhere dark (Completely inaccurate on my part), that she stopped saying it.

Can you just say solo adult levels?

[frankthring]

I could never understand the lads mags fascination or success. Surely, if you
see pix of a stunner you want to enjoy her, have a wank, or whatever, to the
lass with her kit off and not just teasy-topless ? Not all of us also want spreads
of gory pictures, fast cars and soccer. If I want a Brit mag wank and a
tasty tart give me "Mayfair", "Men Only" and a decent REAL mens mag !