Hottie Drop: Kelly Hall
Just discovered this beauty! I had no idea who she was or ever seen a picture of her until OldKingClancy posted a pic and well what can I say but... damn! Click the pics to make them bigger!
and that's just the start. DON'T think I'm short changin' ya, it's just the rest (and actually the best) are not allowed to be displayed around these parts! Take a trip to Google Images and search her name with SafeSearch off and boy, lets just say NSFW... damn!!
Google Images link: http://tinyurl.com/6rphoym
Happy
Glad to be of service sir. If anyone else needs a new hottie then don't be afraid to PM me.
This has been an OKC Hottie Announcement.
@Clancy-Well in that case sir, you might see PM messages from me lately lol.
Do we really need 5 shots of this girl's as-good-as bare ass? It's a bit excessive.
^ they're just photo shoots of a model, a lot of photo shoots are along the lines of this, 'sexy' poses and skimpy clothes and such. They aren't graphic nude pictures or anything (though you can't argue that they're pretty close with the skimpy clothing and angles, still though it's within what this sites deems 'legal' as far as I know)
Wouldn't be surprised if you got a complaint about the nip slips but either way, I dig this chick. Looks good.
I just think it says a lot when someone first complains about excessive (male) nudity in a film and then goes on to post no fewer than twelve objectifying pictures of one girl wearing little to nothing.
@nancy - are you talking about my review of Shame? That's a totally different ball game. For one, it's a movie with a story to tell, photoshoots with models like this aren't made for anything more than displaying a woman's beauty, and that's what they're doing -- that is it's purpose. With the movie my complaint was that it was distracting and not needed and I made it clear that it was NOT just because it was full frontal male nudity, but because the repetitiveness of it added nothing to the movie and became more of a distraction than adding or enhancing anything. As I stated before, it would be the same thing if it were full frontal female nudity
@bink - whoops! Just saw that one, thanks for the heads up -- takin er down!
Yet here you are posting no fewer than twelve objectifying near-nude AND nude pics of one young girl. It’s excessive and not needed on a site like this.
To quote my mom: "a line of dental floss between the buttocks is more offensive than completely naked buttocks." You are the first one I heard complaining about Shame's nudity. (And, I'm sorry, I doubt if you would have complained if there hadn't been any male nudity.) Whether you agree with it or not, the (amount of) unisex nudity in Shame is regarded as functional and even crucial by most critics. But what purpose do twelve touched-up pictures of an objectified, almost naked young girl in a variety of sexually suggestive poses serve?
So I'm kind of confused on the comments here. Is this about the Shame review or the pics? Excessive? Maybe, but no worse than everyone else on here.
@nancy - Well there's the problem--you don't believe me. I'll say it again even though it won't mean anything, but yes -- I would feel the EXACT same way if it were excessive female full frontal nudity in a movie. As seen in my review that wasn't a major complaint (the movie still got a 7) nor did it affect the experience that much so I feel me 'complaining about that' is getting a bit blown out of proportion.
The nudity in Shame being 'functional' and even 'crucial' is something I really disagree with, if what they're referring to is the few parts of the nudity in the movie that I didn't think helped the movie. I don't have a problem with nudity and as such that wasn't my complaint, my complaint was that they overdid the nudity in a few places (yes, one of which was the beginning shots of MF's package BUT you seem to think that was my only complaint about the nudity, it wasn't). Of course the movie needed nudity and sex to truly come across well as the movie is about a sex addict, but what I'm saying is that the excess amount of it was overload and was just unneeded--the viewer can understand what's going on, shooting scenes that almost seem like a porn-shoot just make it feel disconnected from the picture, it's just 'we get it' I'm here to experience the story, get on with it, if I wanted to watch porn I would go watch porn -- that is not the purpose of this movie. The nudity did serve a purpose and moreso than most movies for sure, but while this movie called for above-the-norm amounts it did get to a point where there was no purpose for it to be that graphic
What purpose do these pictures serve? Well like all photo shoots the purpose they serve is to showcase beauty and that's what they do. I'm sorry if you don't like them and that's totally fine, but like it or not that is the purpose of photo shoots and the model very much knows that and knows what she's doing. Is it needed for this website? No, not at all. But does it add to the website/community? For the majority, yes. I wouldn't post this just randomly if it hadn't been displayed already that there a large group of guys on this site that like beautiful women and like admiring them, and I am certainly not the first to share some pictures... so I don't know, if you don't see where I'm coming from that's fine, but I guess we'll just have to leave it at that and agree to disagree if you can't understand me
@RoseBug61: Cochise posted a review of Shame, complaining about the film’s excessive full frontal nudity (which includes a few fleeting shots of the protagonist’s penis). Most people who saw Shame are of the opinion that the film's many nude scenes are functional -- necessary, even. I think it’s a bit odd that Cochise would then go on to post a series of airbrushed, highly suggestive pics of a girl wearing a g-string and a see-through brassiere. It's such a (male) misconception that just because pictures shy away from showing full-frontal nudity they become a harmless "display of female beauty."
Yes, I know you are not the only one posting sexy pics of girls. And I’m not surprised by it. After all, this is the website that has a weekly column called “horror whores” – the appreciation of women on this site is not based on their independence or intelligence. I do not want to single you out or anything; it’s just that you stick out from the crowd for first expressing your dislike for a film’s excessive nudity (a film that according to most people I spoke to/most reviews I read agree needs its nudity) and then posting a dozen pics of the same girl in sexual poses. In Shame, nudity is part of its story and its theme. The amount of nudity tries to de-eroticize and de-objective it. That is why I think these pictures are much more offensive. I do not necessarily object to the pictures an sich. It’s your typical male justification of them that bothers me. They do not celebrate female beauty or whatever. Their only purpose is to titillate through objectification. (The often sexually charged and sometimes downright sexists comments on posts featuring near-naked girls underpin this.)
First off nudity in films is fantastic and second! Thank you very much for thesed pics and brightening my day. That hiney is awesome and in the words of Ron Burgundy "I wanna be friends with it!"
@nancy - As I said I agree that there needed to be nudity and sex in the movie, that was never my complaint. All I said was that to me the excess amount of graphic nudity detracted from the experience and became distracting from the movie's purpose, goal and effect. With these pictures, the whole purpose of them is to admire (or word it however you want, titillate) the beauty of a woman, and specifically her body. I don't see anything wrong with that, just like I don't see anything wrong with women admiring (or "titillating through objectification") men's bodies.
How else do you celebrate female beauty than by looking at titllating pictures of them! It's not objectifying women when they choose to do it. If anything they are objectifying themselves and using there bodies for attention, or more likely for money which is akin to prostitution. For so many so called progressives on here not many people here are even logical thinkers, let alone forward thinking.
Hell I'd go so far to say if you rally want to appreciate women's beauty (or man's if that's what you're into) show them completely naked so you can aprreciate all of it.
If you read Cochise's review of Anti Christ, not once does he complain about Willem Dafoe's junk appearing on screen....because it was an integral part of the plot. Shame is a completely different story, the nudity had added nothing to the movie, in fact it almost took away as a distraction from the story the movie was driving. Would Shame have been the same movie without the full frontal? Yes, probably better....but it wouldn't have gotten as much attention.
I know you said it is the amount of nudity that bothers you (though it does make me wonder when nudity becomes ‘too much nudity’ for you). That is the whole point of the film: for you it became distracting, whereas other people “got over it” not in spite of but because of its excessiveness. The effect (on me and others who appreciated the film): no longer being distracted or aroused by the nudity but being able to focus what these characters are doing and saying. These pics do the opposite: they are commercial and slick, and feature an unnaturally beautiful girl (any stretch marks, zits, fat in unwanted places —or any other shortcomings only real girls in the real world have— are digitally removed) in sexual poses for you to leer at and lust after. Go ahead and enjoy them but please don’t insult me by coming up with silly reasons why these pics are okay and the amount of nudity in Shame isn’t. Oh, and I said this before in another post but I’ll say it again here: a well-groomed man in a nice suit is to women what a naked girl is to most heterosexual men – sorry, boys, but very few women get excited from the mere sight of an exposed penis. I know this is hard to believe to some of you (especially to those who see women merely as unattainable sex objects), but it’s true.
Can you two just stop, you're getting nowhere so just agree to disagree. You're both entitled to your opinions but I'm fed up of getting e-mail after e-mail about this ridiculous argument.
@DropDeadFred: why would Anti-Christ probably be better without the full frontal nudity? It was too realistic with it? It's better to stomach when there's theatrical lighting, professional make up, lingerie, high heels? A contrived, isolated sex scene is okay but when the characters are naked around each other for a long period it becomes...well, it becomes what, exactly? Uncomfortable?
Lets get to the purpose of attraction: SEX.
NAKED = AWESOME
CLOTHED = BORING
yeah alright Clancy, I've tried to put this to bed a few times and just go the old agree to disagree route but yeah... Anyways no offense nancy but this'll be my last comment about this topic here, I think I've explained my point of view as best as I could/I want so if you still don't see where I'm coming from or what I'm saying, that's fine. Cheers
BTW I've heard Anthchrist is an awesome movie and I have to see it. Any comments on that?
@OldKingClancy: It’s not possible to unsubscribe from this particular thread? Okay, I'll stop. I hereby even apologize for suggesting that some MFC schmoes are highly sexist. All schmoes are very experienced with women; they understand what a woman likes and always treat them with great respect. Oh, and Shame indeed had way too much nudity. One naked penis is okay, but when they showed it twenty more times it got distracting.
@awakener - I absolutely loved it, it totally took me by surprise! It's very, very, very messed up not only visually but also in it's themes and plot. It's a hard film to watch, and an even harder one to digest, but if you have the stomach and the mind to wrap your head around it and it's style I think you should definitely check it out. Because of that it's a movie a lot of people will hate though, it's definitely not an easy watch. It isn't what you would think by the title though, don't expect any demons running around or anything, it's a bit more of a quieter, slower, creepier, artsy horror film.
No matter the monniker , the dude draws controversy like a magnet . never a dull one .
Well the friend that recommended it to me has excellent taste in movies so I will definitely check it out. I personally like fucked up movies and I watch a lot of pretty messed up horror movies and I have a pretty sound mind, pretty sure I can handle it. hahaha.
Plus you too seem to have good taste Cochise, I take your recomendations to heart.
MY GODNESS