I love those dress up sets. They kickstart those little wheels in the head, make the phantasy go wild.
If somebody wants to see cervix shots all day long - ALS is just around the corner.
ZZ Top once said, "every girl's crazy about a sharp dressed man." Well, the obverse is true as well - every guy's crazy about a sharp dresseed woman. In this set, I am crazy about Margaret because she is certainly sharply dressed.
Let's face it, seeing the same models over and over again totally nude gets old, repetitive, and boring; nothing ever changes with some of them. When a couple's love life loses its spark, what do they do? The woman makes a trip to Fredrick's of Hollywood and buys some nice things so that her nude body that the guy sees every day, day in and day out, excites him anew and makes it more exciting and more appealing.
The same is true here. One can only look at any one of these models' totally nude bodies for so long before it gets old, repetittive, and boring. One can only look at someone like, say, Semmi A's totally nude body so many times before her sets all start looking the same. Dressing the models up, like what was done here, makes the set more exciting and more memorable. In addition, it would benefit some of the less attractive models to do some costuming. I would like to see more of this in the future, and I think that would greatly benefit METART in the long run because every guy really is crazy about a sharp dressed woman.
The only problem I have with this set is the lack of closeups.
Love it Great set ..............More like this please!!
I have always had a thing for women named Margaret - And this sexy young lady is a fine way to keep that going.
Thank you Margaret!
A wonderful theatrical set of this stunning, beautifully formed woman.
Miss Havisham as Dickens could never imagined her.....
Well so far, 23 hour after my first post today on this, only 34 posts but man what a split of opinion. Nobody is neutral on this one. Actually the costume idea is not new. When I first started here about 8 years ago many sets used costumes, not to this extent but much more than we see today. As it has evolved the editorial focus has changed. Originally more heavy make up, stylized poses, much less natural. And the resolution was nowhere near. And a model could be a top model without any gyno isolation shots. Today we have much less make-up and in most cases fewer clothed shots. Just as there has been a swing back to some if not a lot of pubic hair while for a long time an unshaved stood out. Times change, accepted style, changes. IMHO there should be room for this just as if the camera was any closer it would have to be inside the model. Next we will "judgeing" the best cervix. Also note that we have varied over the years where the girls come from. Right now we are having a Ukrainian invasion. A while ago it was APF and her friends fro the Czech Republic which ruled. Met did not get to #1 by ignoring the changes in style or mandating a certain image. Well except for tats. Sex has a similar problem but that is about what acts are "allowed". It appears they know what they are doing or they wouldn't be there today. Think about the risk they took when they opened this up for minimally moderated comment. It could have been a disaster but many of our regulars have tried to make it a positive feature, and IMO have succeeded.
These things tend to be bi polar. Either you like it or you hate it. The neutral people don't tend to comment. That is the problem. Like politics lately there is no middle ground. U have heard the term the silent majority? The people in the middle are left out because they are committed to either side.
I hate these sets that is quite obvious but I also know there are those that like them. Met has to walk the line and try to have something for everyone and I think K is doing a very good job. I don't like all of the posts but no one will because of the varied tastes of our global membership.
I for one love Metart because of the variety. I find plenty of sets that I love and models too but if we only comment in the positive then the comments are not very productive.
K, I can not believe that you have not jumped in at all on this! You authorized it, give us your thoughts.
K is gone for a week. It will have to wait.
Don't care for the dumb costume. Distracting. I signed up to see nude babes, not costumed models.
I appreciate the variety Paromov brings to the table.
These costume sets of his blend art and eroticism well. They are a welcome deviation from the by-the-book lingerie in bed, and nude outdoor sets. These sets do have some room for improvement, but it’s nice to see some creativity.
Don't dig it. Pretty girl, but the set looks like a rejected shoot from an 80's Dario Argento film.
Trevor this set kinda reminded me of Madonna's Like A Virgin video. Beautiful girl, but would like to see her in a set that is not so over the top in theatrics. Seems like Paromov is trying too hard for the artsy look IMHO. For the record, I do like going to plays, museums and concerts.
I agree, I do like stage, theater and museums. But Metart is not the place for these things. There is so much clutter in this set that the model doesn't have a chance.
Another fanciful bit of "erotic theater". Beautiful!! I like! I especially like this girl, unknown to me until now and I can't imagine why or how I missed her the first time... Very "artistic" set...great job by artist and subject! I'm off to Margaret's page to see what I've missed...or to see just how bad my memory is getting lol
As I noted on her first set, which I enjoyed also, 'generally' speaking, the best sets generate the most controversy and discussion of what constitutes "art" and what's accepted as "erotic". Occasional sets in this "theatrical style" are what keep me interested. My only beef with either of these sets is the file size being so large. I keep too many files to go over 300M very often.
Many of us enjoy your work very much Margaret...please don't be discouraged in the least. Looking forward to what you have for us next...;o)
Margaret is a very lovely girl, and I do not mind romantic backgrounds, I like them, as long as they don't overwhelm the model, as they do here in three or four shots. Paramov is into romantic, complicated backgrounds and I don't mind, except when he forgets about model safety as he seems to in sets like "Siberia "or "Stalingrad " which are shot on location in Siberian winter, or so it seems. Nude models in the snow in Siberia get to me. (Of course my own models when I could do the work claimed that I worry too much.)I gave Margaret and Paromov both a 10+.
The theme and poses are outstanding. The quality of the photos is truly lacking. This set should have been crisp as if you were standing there next to her. The pics should not having me think I need a pair of glasses.
Four months between visits from lovely Margaret is a long time.
I hope the nay sayers do not discourage Margaret and Paromov from posing in and presenting galleries that they each are comfortable with.
Variety is, after all, the spice of life. That said, I would not insist that they both continue to collaborate exclusively on this style of gallery. Nensi started out in a costume set! I wonder if said nay sayers appreciate her more current galleries?
As for today's visit; Margaret's elaborate and beautiful hairdo, her magnificent derriere, and her beautiful face are most attractive to me.
Thanks to both Margaret and Paromov for this gallery.
This nay sayers thinks Nensi is a doll and the sets following that first disaster have been very pleasing indeed. I think the same could happen here if they ditch the ridiculous costumes and smoke machines and concentrate on the model.
Olympic ice-princess - where are the skates?
Margaret is the foxiest girl on this site period. Please show more pics and videos of her.
How can you tell? All I can see is the fluff and costumey trash she's covered in.
Well then you're not looking very closely...
Sheer eroticism. Rear shots are alone worth 10 points.
Reminds me of after the wedding, we didn't even take the time to take the dress off. Loved it! Something about how it was done back in the Victorian era, just flip the dress up and go at it like there's no tomorrow.
Another farce by Paromov. These are theater not erotic photography. There is nothing erotic about these sets. People have complained about a model keeping a piece of legerae around there waist throughout a set and here she doesn't even get naked until the last 2 shots and she is still covered in costume garbage. The shots of her on her knees with the dress up over her butt are nothing butt cheap theatrics and in my opinion border on just plain distasteful. These sets give me the creeps. Next thing will be the 18th century hand held masks.
This is a lovely girl and has great possibilities but IMO this set is an insult to my senses.
Except for your last remark, I'm afraid I agree. A ludicrous set
I agree with you for the most part although I don't think it's *quite* as bad as you're making it out to be. It was just really mercilessly overdone. There is a lot to be said for simplicity.
Exactly what I was trying to get across. This site IMO is the worlds most beautiful women tastefully presented. The art is in the women and the artists ability to present them in all there feminine glory. The models talent and grace is the core of the shoot and should be THE focus not stupid costumes, crazy backgrounds and smoke machines!
"an insult to my senses"? Really?
It sounds like you have deep-seeded issues with "theater"...
I have deep seeded issues with an artist that substitutes gimmicks for talent. The best sets are those that accent and highlight the models natural beauty and talents. Not the set and costumes. As illustrated by the other sets presented today. Both Flavia and Caprice were presented beautifully and tastefully.
Well thanks for your opinion... The "fact" is that many of us like it and appreciate the variety. Your narrow vision of what's "presentable" is shared by few... And if this had been submitted by Rylsky, you'd probably love it!
Have you ever gone to the theater?
In the theaters where it says art, not pole dance.
If you do, then tell yourself, that this is art for theater
Sorry guys. Margaret B is a very lovely model and deserves so much more. To me these sets are not dreams they are nightmares.
This is an your problem not ours.
Margaret gorgeous godess with golden curls and wonderful body.
Paromov offers us one of her beautiful dreamlike paintings.
A Baroque symphony charged of a sizzling eroticism.
Standing ovation for Margaret.
A set of the highest quality seems poor to say : "Top Marks fo two".
It really is a shame to see that there are people unable to read pictures of excellent quality.
For them only fur and stiletto heels.
People are being a little harsh with these rankings..come on guys, it's fun, it's a bit of variety. Good going, lovely Margaret.
Heartily agreed, Myshkin!
What most members just don't get about Paromov's "artistic" sets is that he taps into women's joy at playing "dress up."
Just like little boys never grow up, their toys just gain in horsepower and price, so a little girl never (really) grows up, and never loses the desire to play dress up.
What Paromov does is to tap into that, and then gets his models to undress ~ while still in the spell of the dress up fantasy, in which the girl cannot possibly be happier.
And we are the ones that benefit, because a woman is never as sexy as when she is feeling happy. The happier, the sexier.
This is why I believe that Paromov is a genius and why I love his dress up sets.
I appreciate your take on Paramov's style. Hadn't ever thought about the process of shooting from a female perspective like that. That seems like a valid and overlooked aspect of the art form.
We tend to want to see what WE like, which ultimately sells memberships but the girl's maybe deserve a little fun and deserved placation for their efforts.
On a personal level, I've have often enjoyed the variety that is each photographers style. Visually setting each one apart so as to be recognizable sometimes at first glace. Though some would drive me nuts, like Pasha's fuzzy/dreamy approach, it allows you to formulate a personal view as to whats beautiful or pleasing to the individual eye. This being primarily a visual medium this allows each of us to formulate our own taste.
Inescapably though, consensus rules, and this has for better or worse, lessened our exposure to the sometimes extreme stylistic outputs once so evident, by photographers, this website, and actually this medium as a whole.
I still love what I see and feel Met-etc are evolving in a progressive direction. But once in awhile,,, don't mind seeing a big damn hat.
Right on right on right ON! ;o)
I add her to my favorite models list. Beautiful lovely lady;
From other comments, I was expecting little exposure of intimate parts, but there are actually many pussy shots in this set.
I would say that it would be greater if there were a few close up of open small labia shots as well. But still great set with interesting background and beautiful dress in my opinion. thanks
Don't pre-judge any set based on comments about it. Some of my favorite sets have been slandered by the masses...who seldom have a clue. Good idea to look at sets before reading comments...
I agree, Myshkin.
I agree with you.
Last time Margaret was here we ended up with over 80 comments. It was then a costume set also. So lets just see what today brings. And hold on I bet it will be wild and maybe wooly.
My wooly posted!
Another costumed set by Paromov. Capturing beauty mixed with fantasy.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2016 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.