Prof. Brame here, as I ramble on about one of my favorite subjects: what makes sexy pictures sexy?
One of the (many) reasons I favor vintage nudes is because something about most contemporary efforts to inspire horniness leave me completely cold. I think, for me, it's all so over-engineered, so focused on the "money" shot (which in much porn translates to "cum shot"), and on quickly showing the viewer everything they could possibly want to see all at once. But is seeing everything as exciting, say, as keeping a few little mysteries that make you want to see more? As I've often said, what keeps me coming back to vintage erotica is that it raises questions for me -- who is the person, what's the back-story, how much wilder did he or she get, and dozens more scintillating little questions that create a warm and lasting erotic buzz. When I see everything all at once, I'm bored by the time I click the next link. Is it just me?
Below, two nudes, shot about 50-60 years apart. First, anonymous women of the 1950s, not perfect, very soft, draped in shadows, not a whole lot to see, but her sweet face and curves and mysteries invite you into her world.
One could easily argue that this next young lady, probably photographed in the last 5-10 years, is much hotter. Her body conforms to today's standards of beauty, from enhanced breasts to teeny hips and the almost de rigeur cum drizzling from her mouth. It's all right out there, including what she just did.
If you had to choose, which nude do you think is sexier?
Or, perhaps more to the point, who would you rather fuck?
Recent Comments