2016-11-30

funny! :)

2016-11-30

Maybe, but to be fair to the DICK, they are all A/C by site rules - two have aureolas and/or nipples showing; the others have sideboob, and not just a little... massive sideboob like almost the whole boob visible.

2016-11-30

Sorry retracted "DICK" comment,wish this site allowed side boob for vintage pics.

2016-11-30

Well, ya know, it allowed it for anyone before the advertisers took over.

2016-11-30

Luckily for sideboob and underboob fans the site advertisers attach such content to the site regularly, so I don't buy their being offended in the kind of content they themselves bring to wikifeet. With all respect to BiB60, I stand behind the content I uploaded here, it wouldn't be out of place in "vanity fair" or even "people" magazine. I will continue to upload such content, and unreport it as I see fit, So the ball is in the court of the creator and moderators about how they respond to my account here. I've been banned before I will gladly be banned again. I won't do the mental gymanastics that are required to follow the convoluted and increasingly censored thinking of the new revised site guidelines.

2016-11-30

I've often said that I've seen stuff removed from this "Israeli foot fetish site" that was from (or comparable to pics on) the covers of fashion, sports and women's magazine covers, readily visible at eye level to four-year-olds at any grocery store checkout lane. I've also seen photos removed that were taken in public venues such as Rhianna onstage at her concert in a see-through dress, or Adrianne Curry on a public street outside a convention center wearing a sci-fi cos-play outfit.

2016-11-30

I am no longer willing to subject myself to such puritanical restrictions from a site that pro ports to celebrate the aesthetics of the female form. Thus I am pushing the issue. Ban me, or lighten the restrictions to include all forms of cleavage including side-boob and under-boob, and judge adult stars and mainstream celebrities by the same standards. I've saved everyone the trouble and created my own poll to ban me if that is the community choice.

2016-11-30

Vintage sideboob awesome! Power to the wikifeeters!👊

2016-11-30

#BoobPower #BoobsAreBeautiful #BoobLivesMatter

2016-11-30

I will join #BoobLivesMatter

2016-11-30

I struggle to reconcile allowing babes with their arses in g strings at the beach waving them in the air, with barely millimetres of material hiding their bits, which is allowed, with the nonsensical, childish19 century-standard ban on side or underboob which is not allowed.

2016-11-30

@Grik- Actually, that's not allowed either, especially if it's a 'Horizontal Entertainer.' Welcome to the Victorian era foot fetish site, where Victoria's Secrets must remain secret. +++++++++++++++ From the Admin: "Sometimes pictures give the impression of adult content, even though they aren't. When a picture is cropped to show nothing but skin and give the impression that the girl is naked, or if there's a close-up on feet that give away a weird/porn-like pose, I tend to remove it. I try to look at galleries from the advertisers' point of view (as I depend on them to keep the site going, and they have zero tolerance for edgy content). If I enter a gallery and get the feeling I've entered an adult site, I start removing pictures until it looks SFW. So I'm sorry, but I stand behind my decision to remove those pics. Also, please try to see things my way and avoid from uploading such pics in the future." ~Eli

2016-11-30

The opening line to your tome is the problem "Sometimes pictures give the impression of adult content, even though they aren't. " Do they get kebabed?!

2016-11-30

Yes, especially if Eli goes on a gallery sweep personally. I'm usually only after blatant naughty bits myself and tend to let most everything else slide, but we have several here who seem to take great pride in looking for a single pubic hair out of place or slightest possible hint of aureola.