I wish this set had been even more grainier and had even more green insipid tint. I just love stupid grainy pictures. I also love washed out sets like this which are drab and colourless and which look as though have been shot in a haze of fog. If only this set could have been a even more drab and had even more grain then it would score 100%. I also love sets like this where the models do not become fully naked, the more clothes they keep on the better the set I say. Next time - I say please lets have even more poor lighting, please have even more grain, please have even more colourless pictures with silly green tint, please have even more drab pictures and please keep a lot more clothes on for the entire set. Thanks
Wednesday, May 24th, 2017 on Matyli
This set is both awful and boring. To start with, in over half the photos the photographer is too far away. Indeed, why he did not go the whole-hog and stand in the field opposite to be even further away I will never know. When the camera focus came closer either the subject framing was poor or it was out of focus, or both. Then just to show how boring this was - Picture 34 shows 52+ great marble effect tiles. Not to be out done - picture 30 goes even further. 63+ lovely marble effect tiles, fantastic ceiling lights and even a glimpse of a second great black flower vase. Whilst I do not mind the odd flower vase here and there, I would prefer not to subscribe to sites like this where the internal fixtures, fitting and wall tiles are more noticeable, more interesting and more sharply in focus than the models. Actually this photography puts the B&Q and Homebase DIY catalogues to shame.
Monday, May 22nd, 2017 on Tensia
Sunday, May 21st, 2017 on First Movie
Poor depth of field focusing which results in many of the photographs being 50% out of focus. This seems to be unique with many of the MA photographers as you rarely see photographs on other sites where, for example, the pussy is in focus but the head is not. On this site however, this seems to be the norm.
Saturday, May 20th, 2017 on Cleige
I challenge this. I am sorry, but I do not accept any photograph where the head it cut off as being good photography. I do not accept photographs which are so indistinct that they could be of anyone as being good photography. I do not accept photographs that are published on sites like this, but which show nothing, as being good photography either, otherwise the photographer might just as well have photograph a vase full of flowers. Indeed a vase full of flowers would probably have been more interesting in this case. And finally, just for the record, I AM qualified.
Friday, May 19th, 2017 on Cavida
What is Metart X? Is this a film site? I have never heard of it.
Thursday, May 18th, 2017 on Presenting Caramel
Just When-Oh-When is MA going to come and apologise to their viewers for the appalling way some photographers torture their paying subscribers with horrendous rubbish photography like this?
Thursday, May 18th, 2017 on Cavida
This set is a complete joke.
Wednesday, May 17th, 2017 on Welliz
Way too many outdoor sets - from this photographer!
Monday, May 15th, 2017 on Varza
The recent rain must have deterred the butterflies from coming out.
Monday, May 15th, 2017 on Odaca
I believe MA. I think this was shot the day before publication on the 8TH May 2017. I also think it was shot by who they say they are, that is the great Quanty Rodriguez himself. There are quite a few people called Quanty Rodriguez living in our area (probably hundreds of them), in fact I think it is the most popular name around here, so I will ask around if any Quanty Rodrigues around here produced this set. I cannot wait for this Quanty Rodriquez next shoot to be listed on here. I just love these really dark sets where you have to quint to see anything, I love lots of shadows everywhere obscuring the good bits, I love shoots where the models can only stand up but cannot lie down. Please will the great Quanty Rodriguez that did this set make the next shoots a lot much darker a lot less interesting and with even more shadows. Thanks.
Tuesday, May 9th, 2017 on Alista
Not that many photographers shoots go into my favourites box but this one certainly qualifies. For this shoot - on this site, I score it 10.
Friday, May 5th, 2017 on Barisa
Dull Grainy Photography. Why is it that only this site publishes such indistinct grainy rubbish quality photos?
Thursday, May 4th, 2017 on Conixa
This was a good photo shoot until picture 69. Thereafter it went downhill rapidly.
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2017 on Mipaci
Are you serious? Even if you accept the poor quality lighting as being good quality, the model still has her head part cut off in so many of the shots it is a joke! If you see a shot with a near full body then the feet are chopped off. Also other sites have ART in their title, e.g. Sexart but they would never publish this load of tat. Finally if the paying viewers wanted this type of rubbish then this set and this photographer would get a higher score. I could do better, and I HAVE done better than this load of rubbish, and I am not even a professional photographer.
Thursday, April 27th, 2017 on Estinne
Nice model - but very poor setting for a nude-model shoot. This photographer is going to have to do better than this.
Thursday, April 27th, 2017 on Presenting Siiri
Yes - 7 months to go before membership lapses - then I will join a site where ALL the photographers are up to the job, and not just a few! Lots2admire - well there is NOTHING to admire in this set, so you are welcome to it.
Saturday, April 22nd, 2017 on Estinne
Bland and uninteresting (as evidenced by such a low score). I score the photographers work and not the model hence I score this one point. Nude models (even debuts) know what poses are required and thus this model would have known at the time that this set is not what is required.
Saturday, April 22nd, 2017 on Presenting Anna Aki
I described as a JOKE the last shoot by this photographer of this model. This shoot is also a JOKE. I now also predict that the next work from this photographer will also be a JOKE. This was only a short set of 80 pictures but it might just as well been an even shorter set of just one picture - for what lack of quality they are. It hurts to give a one point score because this set should score a big fat zero! However I cannot find a zero point option. If MA do not ditch the poor photographers on this site then the paying viewers will ditch MA.
I selected about a dozen shots at random, for enlarging - and every one was out of focus!!! score one point.
Sunday, April 16th, 2017 on Tactile
Ian Thomas. You are spot on! This set just does not work, moreover I think most duo sets on this site do not work. I had to laugh when you said someone asked you to resign for your honest opinion - well that makes two of us! Someone going by Arkie 2 told me not to hang around on this site and to resign also - I assume he must be a co-owner of the site, or at least that is the impression he likes to give everyone! Well - should he read this comment he should take note. I have cancelled my automatic renewal, not to satisfy him, but due to so much poor photography and out of focus photography on this site. However contrary to his advice I WILL BE HANGING AROUND for another seven months and making relevant comments accordingly, so he might just as well get over it.
Wednesday, April 12th, 2017 on Evona
Agreed. Lets scrub all future duo sets - they just do not work well on this site.
Great model. However taking the set in its entirety I do not find the photography much bottle. Too many boring repeated poses. I score the model 10 points but this actual photo set I rate at only 4 points. Consequently, as I score the photographers work and not the model, I have scored this set 4 points. One other thing that puzzles me relates to those viewers that score the model and not the photographer work. Surely if this should be the case then the same viewer would score all the different sets of that same model identical points every time the same model brings out a new set.
Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 on Presenting Skylar
(1) I like this set. (2) A flurry of clear in-focus photo shoots for once, all of a sudden, from different photographers. So it can be done, and it would seem the comments section of each set do actually get read. (3) This model has had a few different hair styles and different hair colour over time, but in my view THIS the hair colour and style that suits this model best.
Sunday, April 9th, 2017 on Ynabae
Nice model - very poor, very boring, uninteresting, photography. How could this photographer ever think this set, taken in its entirety, is anywhere near average - let alone good?
Saturday, April 8th, 2017 on Presenting Shaine
Maybe I am missing the point. Firstly I rate the photographer and not the model, usually one or two days later than everyone else as I cannot be bothered to go on this site daily. A good model photographed by a rubbish photographer will always score low in my books, likewise a good shoot with an average model will score higher. Maybe I am doing it wrong. Consequently I only bother to score about 10% (or less) of the shoots on this site, because the photography on this site, in the main, is so poor that most sets fail to get up to at least the average I expect and most shoots fall far short of the clear crisp in-focus shoots you see on other sites.
Thursday, April 6th, 2017 on Recala
I prefer solo sets without sand stuck to their more interesting bits.
Monday, April 3rd, 2017 on Retya
I am in full agreement. However this is no more or less than I have come to expect with most of the RECENT photo shoots on this site. Either no-one reads the comments section, or if they do, they just ignore them. Consequently I do not see the poor quality of the photography on this site (something unique with MA and only MA) improving any time soon. This is a pity as there are good models willing to pose on this site but there is a lack of good photographers able to bring out the best in them.
Friday, March 31st, 2017 on Ledrie
Full agreement here. A lovely model but a dreadful photo shoot. Why not go the whole-hog and have the model swimming in engine oil, it could be no worse? There are some good photo shoots on this site but (for many different reasons) it would seem that rubbish sets are in the majority.
Tuesday, March 28th, 2017 on Presenting Tempe
Is this a joke or what???? I thought the last photo shoot was bad but this shoot is both awful and ridiculous. I cannot believe any other company would have published this load of tat. Moreover, if this photographer thinks most subscribers pay to view this sort of rubbish, then they are mistaken (as evidenced buy the lowest score I think I have ever seen on here). MA are removing much better (older) content than this from the site only to replace it with this load of rubbish. Wrong priorities I think.
Friday, March 24th, 2017 on Taolmi
I will be very generous in my comments here, thus you determine for yourself what I really think. This photo shoot is pathetic, amateurish and out of focus throughout. Pictures 40 and 99 just about sum it up in themselves. I know lots of subscribers on here love fuzzy, out of focus photo shoots which look like they were shot in fog, and thus many viewers will no doubt think this shoot is excellent. Well I think this shoot it worthy of less than one point - what a waste. I am amazed that anyone could find this shoot anywhere near average let alone good. As for picture 103, if the photographer had stood just a few centimeters to the left then the model would have been out of frame completely but at least the settee would have been in focus. Words Fail me - PATHETIC.
Friday, March 24th, 2017 on Cannde
Actually only 30 worthwhile ones (and that is being generous accepting that the out of focus shots are now been deemed to be what subscribers on this site want to see and seem very happy to accept without complaint). Nevertheless I dismiss 1-24, 31-38, 41, 43, 51, 54, 55, 60, 70, 72-80 as pointless. One or two would be acceptable but having 50 NOTHING pics out of 80 as not what I expect to see. The 50 shots I refer to are less revealing than the FREE gardening brochure I was looking through just half an hour earlier.
Tuesday, March 14th, 2017 on Smirea
One of my favourite photographers, however this set was rather a let down. Firstly the good point - well focused (unlike many other photographers on here). Now the poor aspects - (1) what was the point of the first 55 pictures (I nearly fell asleep). (2) Thereafter loads of pictures with knees together (pointless).
Monday, March 13th, 2017 on Ametzi
The panties stayed on far too long. When they were eventually removed we were treated to a MA special - yes - yet another out of focus pussy shot (something you rarely see on other sites. There were far too FEW good poses in this set to interest me - what a waste.
Monday, March 13th, 2017 on Modeta
Great model but very poor photography. If you like pussy in focus and face out of focus then you will like this set. Likewise if you like head in focus and pussy out of focus then again you will like this set. However, I like pussy and face both to be in focus in the same picture (something taken as obvious and normal on other sites). For some photographers on this site, it seems they are not capable of doing this.
Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 on Tespera
Now - Why Cant all shoots be like this? Firstly a full very long shoot, just as I like it (no short set here). Secondly poses of the sort I like best. Thirdly in focus. 100% Thanks.
Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 on Exceria
I quite like the work of this photographer. The photography is that I like to see (in focus, revealing and comprehensive). I only wish there were a lot more recent sets, which could have replaced the many more recent poorer contributions from other photographers .
Tuesday, February 28th, 2017 on Flenad
The 28 Pictures 39-66 inclusive, well what was the point? If we are going to receive short sets then at least make every one of the pictures worthwhile.
Friday, February 24th, 2017 on Latha
Is it too much to ask, for the face and pussy both to be in focus at the same time in the same picture? Many photographers on this MA site seem to struggle with taking good pictures. It is possible to have everything in focus and still fill the frame with a clear image of the face and pussy (photographers for other sites have no difficulty). Maybe standing further back would help. In short, a very good model - but very poor photography.
Thursday, February 23rd, 2017 on Maldde
... And skimpy sets is one reason I will not be renewing my membership. I hope MA take this on board.
Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 on Doshia
I agree - far too short.
Sunday, January 8th, 2017 on Ezim
Looking forward to chatting all about MA with you down at Slapton Sands Devon nudist beach, in the summer lol.
Sunday, January 8th, 2017 on Lirann
Who is this Rose I keep reading about? I assume from the above written piece she is either French or European. Either way, if this is the case, she would be well comfortable and rather used to strutting around in public or on beaches with next to nothing on or even nude. Thus I say a mask and bikini would mean she be rather over-dressed.
Saturday, January 7th, 2017 on Lirann
Over the few weeks I have been a member, I have warmed to the quality of this photographer. Whether indoors or outside the sets are great and thus surely he must be well in the top three of all the photographers on here. Moreover those in the photo shoot are certainly not shy in modeling for him. It is 2017 and over the years to now, many photographers and models have realised what the trend is and what is now required for the viewers, and the MA narrative above this set clearly makes reference to this. Sadly, some photographers on here are still well behind the curve.
Saturday, January 7th, 2017 on Sedona
A very good set. I wish though the set had been longer. I am not a fan of short sets.
Friday, January 6th, 2017 on Dranja
No doubt about it. A very good model and a very good photographer.
Thursday, January 5th, 2017 on Clocen
Correct. However this model HAS given - and on this MA site. I checked her previous work yesterday.
Thursday, January 5th, 2017 on Xyret
This set started off poor and rather than getting better, it got worse. Dull and uninteresting. The panties stayed on far too long, however she may just as well have kept them on anyway, because after removal you could see just as little. I have scored this set one point (only because there is no facility to score zero).
All noted. Being new on here I did wonder why some sets were very short and others much much longer. I honestly thought it was the photographer just being lazy. Thanks for updating me.
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 on Noate
I am not keen on such obvious tan lines, irrespective of who the model is.
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 on Tilane
I am new to this site but wish to add my view. I would rather see longer sets and I choose to enlarge the ones I think are the better ones, rather than short sets which have been hand-picked on behalf of the viewers.
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 on Tidet
When I see poor photography I say it as I see it. When I see a good shoot I will also say it. Well this is a very good piece of photography. This photographer certainly knows how to photograph models outside and the poses were very good too. Well in the top 10 of all shoots I have seen on this site in the 2 weeks I have been on here.
Monday, January 2nd, 2017 on Phenn
The very lengthy piece above from Eventider was a lot more interesting than many of the recent bland photo shoots seen on here recently.
Monday, January 2nd, 2017 on Yamazi
I still hang around here (a) because I paid for a full year based on the comments (completely over the top it now seems) that the site themselves make available on free view before people part with their money and (b) there are still some good photographers on here that produce good stuff and there are many sets from other photographers that go back many years who do not contribute any more but when they did their work was much better than a lot of the tat published now. E.g. I have just looked at the Alin X models shoot. This was listed many many years ago. The camera equipment in those days was obviously not as good as now, and yet the shoot is faultless, good poses, varied, in focus, well lit, a very good shoot. Most of the recent stuff I see now comes nowhere near close. I hope this answers your question.
I say it as I see it. Yet another rubbish shoot which I rate one point. Further up the page someone said this is the models best shoot so far. Well I have only been a member on here for a couple of weeks and thus have not seen this models previous work. However I will say that if this set is the models best, then I will not waste my time at viewing her previous sets on here. I did not sign in on this site until 20.40hr UK time as I was not expecting anything good today (in fact I am beginning to expect not very much of any good any day), and actually I got it spot on. Rubbish.
Sunday, January 1st, 2017 on Yamazi
Well said. Below is my full comment.
Sunday, January 1st, 2017 on Noate
Fantastic model. However yet another bit of very poor photography. If you can not master shadows and light then do not shoot outdoors. Furthermore loads and loads of very bland shots that show nothing and then along comes two or go three good poses (albeit not 100% in focus or too dark) then quickly change back into bland poses again. This is yet another photographer on this site (which going by his last few months of contributions only [but that should be enough]) who does not impress me. I score this set 2 points.
A great model but not so much a great photographer. This set was not that inspiring and as for the first 32 pictures the model might just as well have had her head in a paper bag. Any photographer even half good could have used this model to better effect. I scored this photo shoot 3 on the basis 2 or 3 of the other photographers that contribute to this site would have done better.
Sunday, January 1st, 2017 on Janyo
This model has lovely long hair but only one picture showed it (and even then you had to squint to notice it). What is it with this photographer? She either gets the models to have stupid ponytails, or failing that she would rather shoot many near identical poses and if that fails to show the hair (which she obviously does not care about that much) - then so be it. Most of the pictures were in focus, nevertheless, after checking back on the work of this photographer, I must say that the work of this photographer does not impress me much.
Sunday, January 1st, 2017 on Presenting Nessie
There are too few glimpses of anything. Very boring indeed.
Saturday, December 31st, 2016 on Roderi
What a complete turn off. It would have been a fairly good set had it not been for the artwork.
Friday, December 30th, 2016 on Labina
Friday, December 30th, 2016 on Sontize
One of the best photographers on this site, if not the best. Some of the other weaker photographers who frequently churn out the same old weak tat would do well to learn from the work of this photographer.
Friday, December 30th, 2016 on Maxio
I like the work of this photographer (one of the better ones), however I do not like this set, far from his best work.
Wednesday, December 28th, 2016 on Mebri
I like this set, best of those today.
Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 on Theny
I scored it 3, and even that I think was to high. This set was rubbish.
Monday, December 26th, 2016 on Miala
I was a member on here many years ago, but was recommended to re-join as the content was now much better. Well it is - and that is good. Just like this set, well in focus and mostly good. I have started checking back over the stuff I missed and what I have seen so far is a great improvement, it is a pity though that some of the not so good photographers at the time I left the site are still here and still producing the same old poor ranking tat. Anyway the site is now showing what I want to see. Finally, I have already decided I will not be renewing the membership in 12 months time. When I registered I deselected the 19.99 sexart option only for it to re-appear well hidden and unnoticed on the pay page. Thus I have been screwed an extra 19.99 for something I did not request nor do not want. Numerous shots of models obstructing their bits with their hands on sextart does nothing for me . This sharp practice would never be allowed in the UK - thus in 12 months it will be bye from me again.
Sunday, December 25th, 2016 on Nyella
Yeah its not one model, disrobing lingerie in the traditional style in a bedroom setting, heaven forbid a nice interior and with these two present I have to applaud you for counting tiles in the face of such beauty so readily apparent!.
It is interesting that I have seen many comments from members making exactly this point but not one where someone praises a shot where one part of the girl is out of focus. Yet photographers still take pictures with a tight focus so that you cannot appreciate all a girl's charms (e.g. pretty face, beautiful pussy) in one picture. Why? The photographer as the artist has the right to shoot what they think is artistic but at the same time it might be nice for them to take notice of the deluge of criticism on this point. No more fuzzy pictures please.
Friday, May 19th, 2017 on Maldde
MetArt X is the 'sister' site where we feature MetArt girls but going harder – masturbating in photos and movies. MetArt has always been a soft, erotic nude site and that will not change, but we wanted to provide the option for those who have requested it. Some of our most gorgeous girls and talented directors have already appeared there, so check it out – I hope you like it! :-)
DA! Outdoor "IS" his specialty! He's one of the best outdoor photographers still working MA! We are getting far too few outdoor shoots any more and almost None of the street sets that were so interesting!
Thursday, May 18th, 2017 on Varza
You just do not recognize good photography when you see it!
Exactly correct friend, it's April, and butterflies are inactive in Superior, Wisconsin / Duluth, Minnesota.
A bit chilly still for nymphs to chew their way out of the cocoons.
Will the real Quanty Rodrigues please stand up?
an asshat has spoken. and not for the first time. and the next time with similar content. same old,same old.
here to place a taint. a theme familiar.and stupid. all the time the same stupid.
HERE FOLLOWS THE LIST. THE WORST OF THEM ALL.
CHECKED IN 2 plus YEARS OF TRACKING.
The Seller The Seller
to be considerably improved by death.
one and all.
in varying proportions they come - somedays 'nice' somedays nasty.
The Elephant Willy Folk.
Strange denizens of Lard Mountain.
Where it's always ''Chicken Tonight''
England sure is an ugly place these days...
and the ugly is always the 'people'.
The flowers bloom,the birds sing, all that is natural -sunshine springtime all around - light and warmth.
but not the people.
misfits.the disabled.the obese.limping and scowling and horrid.liars fornicators and eaters of dead things.frauds cheats and the spiritually bankrupt.wrinkled and twisted and walking sticks to the horizon.
That is exactly how it looks.
and they post here.
I honestly don't get the complaining about Lightfoot anymore.
I've seen FAR worse than a bit of grain on many photographers here. Including:
- Over smoothing that makes models look plastic.
- Shallow depth of field where over half the model is blurred in every shot.
- Out of focus / poor lens quality where almost every image has some blur at 100%.
Lightfoot does none of these things - I can deal with a small bit of grain at 100%.
Some members just don't get it. This is his style of shooting. Occasionally, some sets not shot in this style appear which goes to the supposition that K has a number of his sets waiting to be published, in no particular order. Some members like his style of shooting... some don't. Goes the same with numerous other photographers whose work appears hereabouts.
It's a FIRST SET (for all we know). Give her a break. Remember back to when you got your first job. Weren't you nervous about it? As for "... what is REQUIRED [my emphasis]"... if you poll members around here, some say ANATT is what is "required". Perhaps it's what she was willing (or able) to give us at this time. No need to denigrate her for it.
She's cute - and has those great dark areolae splashed against her pale skin - kinda like a couple of Hershey Kisses - and I like her for what she presents to us.
Would definitely like to see more sets of her in the near future.
only negatives from this jerk time after time.low class act.so many around.
yer full of shit.
How could K?
don't worry guys,
this set is surely an early April Fool's joke by Iona. The true set with the classy pics was exchanged by the trashy ones, only to be released tomorrow or some.
We won't be fooled by those april tricks. Just wait till tomorrow.
Saturday, April 1st, 2017 on Ledrie
It's about time we got some Truth and Honesty in these comments. I know little about photography, other than I started in 1949, aged 5, with a box brownie. But even I can see the boredom Arkisi is permeating through-out this set. I Still think his Chimpanzee is responsible.
Wednesday, March 15th, 2017 on Smirea
Personally I like this set, but would have preferred it gone on a bit longer once the eroticism got going. I've got a thing for bottomless shots and glasses so and Li, so that's part of it. I also appreciate the non-sexually explicit shots as long as the set eventually gets there.
I does drive me nuts though when photographers go way too low on the depth of field. Shallow DOF should only really be used for portraits or perspective shots like #34. This set certainly isn't the worst example of it, but a few fstops higher would have helped.
Lol. "We demand more photos! Also, most of the photos are worthless!"
Not intending to be rude or condescending but geeez... too many of this, too few of that, not enough of these, nothing (or very few in focus)... if you're so disappointed with "... what subscribers on this site want to see and seem very happy to accept without complaint" I'm not quite sure why you're hanging around MetArt. Why not just cancel your subscription and ask for your money back? After all, there are most likely at least dozens of other sites offering what you clearly don't feel you're getting here.
That is all negative.
I'm really sorry to hear that. "Skimpy" is an interesting word to choose though. We feature four updates every single day (six on the first of the month). Some are longer, some are shorter. There are literally THOUSANDS of photosets in the archive, I mean I can't even guess how many, has anyone ever counted? I don't see how you could ever get to the end of it. I've been here nearly three years I think, and I'm still discovering gorgeous new girls here all the time.
See you there ;-)
I am English (like you, I'm guessing!). If only it was warm enough to strut around in public in next to nothing, I would be happy to do so! I'm not shy, just camera shy :-)
You're welcome, my friend.
There is an entry in the Blog entitled "To Be Or Not To Be 80" written by Jon, the owner of MA, about a month ago. The comments on the blog are just as interesting as his post is itself. I encourage you to read it sometime you have some spare time. (:
Wednesday, January 4th, 2017 on Noate
If you are unhappy about the paucity of "good" shots, don't blame Matiss, thank the (few, but very vocal) members who provided a stream of "there are too many repetitive shots in this set!" complaint for over two years. According to a staff member who would know, that was the number one complaint MA received for over two years before the new short set standard was rolled out. That complaint led to fewer shots in a sequence of good poses, and fewer photos in a standard photoset.
Thank those members, don't blame Matiss, who must provide the product that MA asks for if he wants to continue to be published.
Thanks for the response. Here, I agree with you about the archival content. There has been a great divergence in recent years from what MetArt used to be. The archives show that it indeed was more directed towards the "Art" side whereas as of late, the "in-your-face" and "ANATT" styles seem to have garnered favor with an increasing number of members who seem to decry "I paid for all naked women all the time and that's what I want to see!" It seems as though it's almost become more of a peep show in certain respects than a celebration of the female body. Let's face it... there are only so many ways the human body can bend and part of the "artistic" process lies in finding out how to "dress it up" and present the membership with something new.
Hello UK100ByeEU, we are always happy to hear feedback from our members and try to address it. Thanks for taking the time to voice your opinion, it helps us to know what we can do to make you happy. If you want to leave longer or more detailed feedback you can always use the orange "site feedback" button at the side of the screen, or email me – firstname.lastname@example.org. We take our members' satisfaction seriously and welcome constructive critique.
I may be just a bit on the other side of confused here but if, as you say, you are "...beginning to expect not very much of any good any day.", then why in the world would you continue to hang around here? If it "hurts when [you] do this" then why do it?
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.