Images 41 and 117 are the perfect views of where i'd spend most of my time with her, and in 117 I'd love to lick her cream right out of her cunt.
I am a huge fan of cute faces ... CHECK
I am a huge fan of amazing derrieres ... CHECK
I am an huge fan of lithe bodies ... CHECK
I am a huge fan of well executed intimate shots ... CHECK
I am a HUGE fan of Katie A ... CHECK !!!
HAPPINESS !!! MUCH HAPPINESS !!!
A day with Katie in it is a Great Day!!
This young lady just knocks me out.
Visit often Lovely.
+5 ass of power
10 Plus overall!
+10 pussy of pleasure?
(Here's a word I cannot recall ever having had occasion to use before... I'm excited!)
"Pussy of puissance."
Any fan of Katie's can find much better pictorials of her. This appears to be an older set.
Could well be, Ya never know at the Met!
What a gem Katie is! I happen to like the "body parts" shots, especially as in 34-35 and 118 where we get to see her natural lubrication appearing. That is such a turn-on, so much better than when they use oil to make a model appear to be wet. If posing erotically gets her excited, all the more excitement for us!
I am not a fan of shoots where the model leaves the hosiery on for the entire shoot.
For me, it ruins the shoot. I prepare to see it come off eventually, so that the models legs and feet can be viewed as well. Just my opinion.
Katie is lovely, and should be seen in full.
Lately, I have been noticing quite a few photo shoots here on Met-Art, with the models wearing hosiery throughout the entire shoot. Mind, I am not against lingerie of any kind, just as long as it is off. Yes, it can initially accentuate the body, and heighten the viewer senses, and as a prop, add a degree of mystique and creativity to a shoots theme… bla bla bla… yawn… Bullshit! Take it off. Just like clothes, as far as nude erotic modeling is concerned, inevitably, invariably, (hopefully) the fabric must come off.
In our everyday lives, we see plenty of women in hosiery all day long, we don’t need to see them here. Covering the legs of a model like Katie, is a sin.
A good rule of thumb for photographers who unnecessarily continue to struggle with themselves to try to be extra creative in their erotic photography. You want to set the right mood? Always go nude.
Hose is a doze.
Naked is sacred.
Gotta disagree. Sure, we see women with hose on everyday... but we don't see them with nothing BUT hose on.
It would be really interesting to see a poll of members on issues such as this: i.e. hose vs. none, jeans shots, shorts, starting a set with clothes vs. going straight to nude, tattoos vs. no tattoos, natural vs. enhanced breasts, etc. etc.
Wow, she can rub her ear hole over me anytime she wants!!
Katie is avery pretty girl, if sometimes over-exposed in the outdoor shots. I think she looks great without pants but I much prefer dressing the model warmly in the winter, and Katie does look very cute in jeans and sweatshirt
I'm not usually a fan of body part shots, (I like to see the model's face), but for Katie, I'll make an exception in 77-79.
Those thigh-high stockings surely highlighted her sexy legs and her oh-so-cute round butt.
Those thigh-high stocking covered her great legs for the entire set. Ruined it for me. If half the set was with and half without, we both would have been happy with this set.
I'm siding with Jannice on this one. While MA sets with stockings are not exactly rare, they are far more rare now than they were several years ago. So IMO they're a treat.
Judging by the delightful candids that open and close the set, Katie would fit right in my social circle... ( :
Gotta love the creamy goodness visible just inside her portal to paradise... I would like to think Katie tastes as sweet as that lovely megawatt smile of hers.
While she always does well with whatever photographer shoots her, I am finding Iskan's work with her to be my favorite.
I am sad! sweet little Katie is doing the ear hole thing. Why oh why would you do that? There are certain things that just ruin it for me and that is one of them. My heart is broken.
"Ear hole thing"!???? WTF are you talking about hip!??
Why'd you have to point that out? I would've ignored it and assumed it was a bland stud. Now, very creepy.
Meh. Not creepy at all, IMO.
Not necessarily attractive... but not creepy. ( :
This is a thing? I hadn't noticed.
I believe the technical term is "gauging."
Urbandictionary.com is your friend:
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.