#1 By: Xeni Jardin, October 14th, 2013 18:09
#2 By: seyo, October 14th, 2013 18:21
"Vegans, pretend it's soy."
Impossible, vegans have no sense of humor.
#3 By: Phoenix K, October 14th, 2013 18:28
"Vegans, get over yourselves."
#4 By: matt, October 14th, 2013 18:39
"Vegans, get under yourselves."
#5 By: Rindan, October 14th, 2013 18:48
How can you tell if someone is vegan? They will fucking tell you.
#6 By: Eksrae, October 14th, 2013 18:56
Ate a vegan once...
Dry and judgemental.
#7 By: Uber Alice, October 14th, 2013 19:09
You can always tell a vegan.
But you can't tell them much.
#8 By: algomeysa2, October 14th, 2013 19:18
Those old ads were right --- milk really does do a body good!
#9 By: Sam Paul, October 14th, 2013 19:55
Geeze and boingboing was just complaining about guys objectifying women at a comiccon a few posts ago....so now we have a these male fantasy cream shots. I guess it's different when you pay models.
Snark aside: great pictures.
#10 By: Errol, October 14th, 2013 20:06
Why the anti-vegan sentiment?
#11 By: Preston, October 14th, 2013 20:27
That milk seems to be pretty cold!
#12 By: robulus, October 14th, 2013 20:59
Amazing images. Super hot. Love it.
#13 By: Sam Paul, October 14th, 2013 22:54
You could have shortened that comment to "Great Nipples, Sugar Tits"
#14 By: Shane_Simmons, October 14th, 2013 23:09
I don't know if I'm going to respond with snark or not, but I'd say it's different. On the one hand, you have women at a con who are dressed, sure, scantily, at a con. But there, you have creeps taking creeper shots because they're creeps. Here, you have pro photographers who have agreements with the models, who surely know that at least some people will see this as erotic and arousing. Which it is, yeah, but it's also a pretty neat technical and artistic achievement.
#15 By: millie fink, October 14th, 2013 23:37
And to be clear, I think it's in the comments, not in the OP.
#16 By: Mike_Hanrahan, October 14th, 2013 23:48
The older I get, the harder it is to take art photography like this seriously. On the one hand, most of the images are striking visually. On the other hand, hasn't art photos = tits been kinda played out at this point? How much more is there to be said by covering women's faces while uncovering their breasts?
Male gaze, something, something, objectification, mumble mumble, but still pretty, garble warble poot.
#17 By: technogeek, October 15th, 2013 00:13
I'm tremendously impressed that they were able to figure out how to get the shapes they wanted out of liquids. The fact that those shapes tend to drape like fabrics, for me, makes using them to reconstruct classic pin-up shots entirely reasonable.
Erotic? At about the level of the pinups they recreate, meaning pretty tame by today's standards.
I wouldn't have objected to seeing male equivalents, though you'd have to find cultures in which men wear flowing robes to make the images work.
#18 By: Preston, October 15th, 2013 00:16
Sugar tit is a folk name for a baby pacifier, or dummy, that was once commonly made and used in North America and Britain. It was made by placing a spoonful of sugar, or honey, in a small patch of clean cloth, then gathering the cloth around the sugar and twisting it to form a bulb. The bulb was then secured by twine or a rubber band. The baby's saliva would slowly dissolve the sugar in the bulb. In use the exposed outfolded fabric could give the appearance of a flower in the baby's mouth. David ...
#19 By: Halloween Jack, October 15th, 2013 00:20
Quite honestly, I found myself both marveling at the expertise involved and a little squicked out by the symbolic bukkake.
#20 By: Jeff, October 15th, 2013 00:55
What if it wasn't milk, same reaction?
next page →