Face vs. No Face: A Survey

[Fango]

Something I'm curious about and I'd kind of like to get a general consensus. Will you download and/or save a picture without the woman's face in it, either cropped out or censored? I, personally, will not. A body without a face is just a hunk of meat to me: I just don't find anything sexy about it. Yes, the nude female form is always a turn-on, but it's the face attached to that body that's what's truly sexy, and what makes every woman truly unique (except for identical siblings ). But, I'd like to know how others feel about the subject. Feel free to vote in the poll above and/or post a written response.

Thanks

Fango

[Otherside]

I voted no. A random, headless body picture does nothing for me, personally, regardless of how nice that body is.

[ElGigante]

it depends.
Nothing wrong with hiding someones face. the only thing I dont like is when its badly done with a paint program. An ugly pink block slapped onto an image, or nasty specks of yellow blobbed all over. People should try wearing a mask (not a gorilla mask ) or covering your face with your hand or turn away from the camera, but please dont use paintshop, please!

[raffles123]

I pretty much agree with the prior message. I can understand why some people do not want recognizable erotic pics to go out on the Internet; yet they want to share. On the other hand, cutting off the head or covering the face in some clumsy fashion most certainly reduces its erotic nature, and I generally don't bother with such pics.

[solarking]

This survey is uniquely timely for me.

A young lady friend/colleague was looking over my shoulder as I was perusing OCC in my office. If her SO would agree, she expressed an interest in appearing in a photo gallery, but her face had to be hidden for the usual reasons.

I personally do not care for disembodied genitalia, blacked out heads etc. A single vagina ultra close-up pic may as well be an arm pit picture. It is the context of the video/photo that interests me. Obviously, many others like those shots, but they just hold no interest for me. Thus, when my friend gave me two crotch only photos to post, I was pretty disappointed.

I guess that my face reflected my opinion of her photos. I inadvertently hurt her feelings. It took courage for her to show the photos to me. From her perspective, those crotch shots represented the manifestation of a heretofore very secret fantasy, to be a wanton exhibitionist. The thought of secretly exposing her vagina to hundreds, perhaps thousands of total strangers was consuming her. And I ruined her buzz by not being excited about the photos.

How does one explain personal tastes, sexual influences etc.? I attempted to explain how I felt in 100 words or less, but knew that I was not that persuasive. She felt somewhat humiliated that I was not turned on by her pictures. I tried to recover but it did not really work. So, with a sigh, I agreed to turn one of her pictures into my avatar. It would have to be modified from a static crotch shot, but more folks would probably see her vagina/avatar than in a "look at my cha-cha" post. She did not care how I modified the photo as long as her vagina stood out (another sigh). So, my new avatar is my colleague's pussy, semi-artfully disguised as a crystal ball vision. (sigh 3) She loves it.!?! I've begun calling her my avatart.

What I learned from this is that MOTIVE is the context for some folks. The boring crotch shot took a great deal of personal courage. I still do not like those types of photos, but I am more understanding about why they happen. I am now lobbying for the privelege of taking some better pictures, if her SO will agree.

As an afterthought, it occurs to me that a before and after of the crotch photo might be in order.

[Lotfw]

An intentionally post processed obscured face no. Partially hidden or maybe artistically hidden by the subject... yes.
A good pic from the rear... yes!

[kjidnavzum]

I do not care whether it is a nice face or not, but I prefer a face to a cencorised bar/smudge/spot
I like a *real* picture (as it is taken), not a blocked out bodypart, face or no face.

On the other hand.....

I will download the picture anyhow, even with the smudge/spot/bar, *if* that is the only one choice available....

I rather have a picture of a girl wearing a mask, than the *same* picture with a bar/smudge/spot preventing her eyes to be recognized..

beauty does not matter to me... (but it does).... it is the situation of the picture that would be my first step in selecting my *favorites*

It is nice if a picture has a nice face, AS LONG AS IT IS A REAL FACE

I hope this clears things up

[frodo]

A face or whole bodyshot is preferred, but if the girl is hot and there is no other option yes i would download the picture. When it comes to censoring I would prefer she hide her face with her hands rather than a black box or a distorted face.

[nobonobo]

Good question Fango... I have almost no faceless shots in any of my downloads. A pair of sunglasses is the most face coverage I will accept, unless it strikes me as a spectacularly sexy shot.

As a matter of fact, not only does there have to be a face, but there has to be at least one ordinary, everyday clothed pic in the mix too, or I won't usually bother saving them (as you can tell by the thread that I post the most to). And if there is only a faceless nude shot, then there has to be a piece of jewelry, or maybe some clothing or something in the shot that identifies the nude person as the same lady who is in the clothed shot.

Kills me too sometimes when a spectacular series of a girl is posted by an obvious ex boyfriend or husband and there is no clothed shot. Why wouldn't you just post that too? There are probably more of those shots to post then the nude ones!

My two cents.

[Crazy8]

It depends for me. I agree that a faceless body is not really that sexy but sometimes there is just a shot that I can't pass up. By in large, I prefer faces in my shots.