Marshmallowpie opened this issue on Apr 28, 2001 ยท 9 posts
Marshmallowpie posted Sat, 28 April 2001 at 8:36 AM
Marshmallowpie posted Sat, 28 April 2001 at 10:30 AM
Heheh I guess I do sorta agree about it being more sensual than sexy. Then again it depends on how you look at it. Hmm, thanks for the comment.. :-)
mjshepherd posted Sat, 28 April 2001 at 5:24 PM
Gawd, is the smut of the gallery starting to infect our forum? What with sexy/sensual comments and in the previous image by Bsteph, Alpha had a hangup about size......I come here to get away from this filth! LOL
bsteph2069 posted Sat, 28 April 2001 at 8:33 PM
Marshmallowpie are you sure you're not that guy I met in college many years ago who was WAAAY to educated about biology. Buy the way. Not bad taste for a secon image using a SLR. I'll never look at roses the same way again! Bsteph
Gwyn Tyger posted Sun, 29 April 2001 at 4:18 AM
i had always thought an ordinary photo could be erotic and this is the proof. this is trully a beautiful and exotic picture.
Marshmallowpie posted Sun, 29 April 2001 at 5:42 AM
I don't know, roses just ARE sensual...no matter how i look at them. And I don't know squat about biology, sorry bsteph :-) But this photo - even if you don't know what it is - just the colours and the softness indicate a bit of eroticism.
bsteph2069 posted Sun, 29 April 2001 at 7:36 AM
Not to mention looking down this very soft, rosy collored hole! I don't think it is a red brick well I am observing. Buy the way I don't know much about biology either. Bsteph
zimmer posted Sun, 29 April 2001 at 11:47 AM
Im impressed. Really good work. I love abstractions in photography. And this one is surely sensual. Great work. Arturo
Marshmallowpie posted Sun, 29 April 2001 at 9:51 PM
Thanks =:-)