Opinion Jow Forums

Streuth. You are a dumb cunt aren'tcha?

Attached: 1537910573080.png (354x378, 201K)

Yes its disgusting because no woman looks like that, do they want to fill young girls minds with this nonsens? Better have a big fatty on the wall

>fake tits
no

>It looks like porn to me but maybe that's because I'm a degenerate wanker.
Or you just are a faggot.

the lighting is simple but decent
you're getting my go ahead lad

have sex incel
if you cant tell fake from real in 2019 then you are probably a brown and low IQ

Post proof. I don't think this image would be posted publicly. Especially not a woman with fake tits and landing strip pubes representing the natural female body in a medical building.

Which uni?

Yeah. They tell me women are people
but then put up art showing them as headless sex objects.
I'm OP. Faggotry goes without saying.

Not artistic because it shows pussy. Proper art hides that. Pic related would be acceptable and encouraged.

Attached: 403353465_0ddf938962_z.jpg (480x640, 66K)

they are called implants.

What fucken uni puts that up? Where do you go?

>I'm OP. Faggotry goes without saying.

Digits confirm that you are indeed, a faggot that doesn't know what boobs look like.

Attached: 133488840995.png (346x306, 143K)

Those are definitely fake, that’s not what real tits look like

what is fake about them

UTAS

Fake tits ruin everything.

It's porn.
The pose with her arms above her head is supposed to be inviting, as in an invitation to sexual contact.
The idea that they would display this in a medical building is disturbing to say the least, but it probably just comes down to typical anglo boomer incompetence and aesthetic blindness.

Post "Stop unrealistic body images" under that

Post "where is her head?!?!?!" under it

have sex, you'll find out

nothing inherently wrong with nudity in of itself.

why does it show a vagina? only depraved sex perverts show female genitals.

>not having willpower to contrl yourself

This is art. It's not provocative, except to 10 year old boys. How many of those are running around your uni?

I don't think it's porn

Don't look into Klimt

they're called fake
>not oppressing women instead

Klimt has paintings I would call Porn

but I still love his art

They’re pretty much spheres

The Female body has been the gold standart for aesthetics since Venus from Milo.

Thats not going to change anytime soon either, despite what libtards try to push.

Attached: dean-martin-hologram-exclusive.jpg (768x512, 108K)

That's acceptable imo

THIS.
it's art. Who doesn't see the beauty in the ideal female form.

Your brain on kangaroo meat.

I fucking hate artificial tits. It looks so disharmonic.

Came here to post this

Does it show any form of skill or mastery of the craft? It doesn't, really, show mastery, but it does show a form a skill.

Was the photo shot to sexually arouse? Was all preparation, staging, and posing done to promote nudity and emphasize a draw to her genitals and tits? Is the fact that the photo is shot well taking away from it's intent behind everything going on in this photo?

It's porn. It doesn't belong in public. Even the Venus de Milo was a private painting that some rich guy hung up in his fucklounge. This also isn't anywhere near the Venus de Milo in terms of skill or showcasing what photography means in our decade, century, etc. Maybe someday, 300 years from now, people will be wondering what went so fucking wrong that America collapsed in the mid '00s, and this photo will be hanging in a museum with the titled "Hospital Cumrag: Artist Unknown." But I doubt it.

found the incel

i could jerk off to this easily

gay