Swingers Advice on Sending out Pics

[FlyBiNiter 16]

---

Originally posted by floridanudist:

 

Many women will request face shots, but I'm not sure if they necessarily want a full-body nude photo that includes the face, or just a portrait-type face shot. Somebody told me today that women usually want to see what a man's face looks like.

---

Can't speak for ALL ladies, but I personally don't want a nekkid picture right away. I know what a penis looks like, as I do live with one, and I'm pretty familiar with the general appearance of the rest of a man's body as well. Bottom line - if I don't like your personality, and I don't like your face, then I don't want to look at your goodies. If I do like you enough to want to see them, we can get to that later. Just my opinion.

[invictus 45]

Good topic!

 

We have an ad on swappernet with several pictures. All of the pictures have the faces hidden. Some of them are done via a tilted hat, a turned face, a hand, etc. (I'll agree those are the best). Some of them have the faces blocked out with an added color block. Most are R or X-rated.

 

The problem with putting face shots on the internet is the loss of anonimity to the rest of the world. Anyone can veiw your profile and idenify you by a face shot, and you won't even know it. This could be your kids, their friends, your co-workers, etc.

 

If we meet someone we feel very comfortable with, we will send a face shot via email in a G-rated setting. It is not that we want to hide what we look like, but we need to maintain enough discretion to not have X-rated pics that are obviously us circulated.

[L&K 15]

We just dont see the big thing about G rated pics , solicited or not . If we were going to get offended because some one sent us a picture with out asking then i think we would have turned tail on swinging a long time ago . If the pic is nude then the anti goes up , one wonders why they would be so willing to send such a pic to some one they dont know , yet im not offended , rather start questioning who this person is and what type of person they are . We would be less interested in the couple or person that sent a nude right off with out us asking but we are still not "offended" by it . Its not our butts in the picture .

 

We all ways ask for a " recent " photo , prefer full shot face and body any thing form the family album is fine .

 

You can call us shallow if you want but looks count . I have a pretty wide range of what i find attractive in woman and so does the wife about men , but there is limits to every thing . Any one that would meet a prospective swing parnter with out ever having seen them i would worry about , Notch getters i say

 

M

[OhioCouple 39]

Originally posted by TNT

Personally I never send pics that I am ashamed of in any manner ( ones I wouldn't mind my grandmother seeing). That way if they get passed around so what..they're good pics.

I totally agree! Don't post anything that is entirely revealing and don't send out anything that you wouldn't mind the minor kid down the block getting their hands on.

 

 

Originally posted by Canadian Couple

One thing they'd said in their letter to us that raised a bit of a red flag, he said his wife enjoys getting nude pictures from others.

You wouldn't believe the times that we received similar notes! Like you we said... "yeah...Uh huh...."

 

We do have an assortment of what could at best be called "hard" "R" rated pictures, but we do not send those out to just anyone and certainly to no one that we haven't been intimate with. After all isn't the suprise of what awaits an intricate element of desire? At least that is how we view it.

 

Lori

[Brit_Pair 60]

Originally posted by Flori_DAMAN

I don't put much faith in pictures. We have recieved some that potray an absolutely stunning person, only to find it was ten years old, or that the person is an excellent photographer. A good photographer can make an average person look pretty damn good.

And even with an averagely powered piece of art/photo manipulation software, it's amazing what transformations can be rendered. Put something like Photoshop in the hands of a skilled user . . .

[menher4her 15]

Why don't more legit swingers simply invest $25 to $100 and get a web cam? A cam allows much greater control over the distribution of your image and allows one to weed out many of the fakes. Cams work with MSN, Yahoo, and AOL instant messaging. Each of these instant messaging applications are free as well.

 

We get so many people who absolutely demand a pic but won't IM us and see us live. We can only assume that these are the folks that aren't legit and stand people up after painstaking arrangements have been made to meet them. The people who do see us on cam are overwhelmingly more reliable. The cam sessions act as dates prior to actually meeting. Then, when a date has actually been made, everyone is much more comfortable.

 

Another added benefit is that, as our Brit friends pointed out, people can't "fool" us with a cam like they can with pics. No Photoshop. No pics that were taken 10 years ago. Just the cam, which doesn't lie.

 

As far as we're concerned, camming is the future of this lifestyle. If you won't view us on cam, then you probably wouldn't show up for a "date" anyway.

 

Long live the U.K.,

 

menher4her

[OhioCouple 39]

Well for us, it is a matter of learning how to use a web cam. I am sure that we aren't the only ones that are technology challenged. We actually have a web cam but haven't had the time to figure out how to operate it and I'm not really sure how we would choose to utilize it when we do. For us I think it would be more so for keeping in touch with the kids and grandkids as they change daily.

 

I personally have no interest in live web chat when it comes to meeting potential swinging partners. My reasoning for this is that people are comfortable in the midst of their own domain and may appear to be more likable via cam than what they would be in person. I know for myself, I would feel comfortable chatting via cam, in my own home, but I would most defiinitely come across as either a 'cold fish' or insincere when meeting in person due to my shyness. (I am not shy behind a keyboard or the comfort of my own home, friends or family.)

 

I just don't see where a web cam will cut to the chase of finding out who and what the person behind the internet really are. I am sure it is just as easy to portray an image via camming as it is to do so behind a few pictures and an ad online.

 

Lori

[menher4her 15]

I'm not sure I can help you as far as the technology goes. We simply inserted the CD that came with the cam, plugged it in and it worked. Once we got a free Yahoo Instant Messenger ID, we clicked "Start Webcam" followed by "Invite User to View My Cam" and they could see us in seconds. No problems. A cam is like any other new technology in that, at first people have a hard time getting to grips with it and then, with time, it becomes second nature.

 

As far as your point about it being just as easy to portray an image with pics and profiles as with a cam, I have to strenuously disagree. We can't count how many times people have doctored pics or more commonly sent outdated pics. A cam simply won't allow it.

 

We think of a cam as a phone call with the huge advantage of actually seeing the people on the other end.

 

Just as silent movies became obsolete due to talkies, we feel that cams will do away with pics in this lifestyle. We just hope we're alive to see it.

 

menher4her

[naughty A 23]

I have a web cam - I don't use it. I think it works, it came with my system and the computer guy showed it to me hooked up. But I tend to have opposite hours to most people. - Most of my free time is in the early morning with brief periods at other times, so chat rooms, IM and the like don't really work for me. If someone insisted I suppose we'd find out if it was fully functional.

 

I view the photos we take as an art form - I'm trying to create "my" conception of art with them, I've even considered a few for blowing up and posting on the walls of the more private areas of my home - keep meaning to do that...

 

What irritates me about other pictures I see is the primarily the lack of attention they pay to background ... I was looking at some photos posted on a web group that I belong to and saw a woman with her face averted, fine - but in one shot I could see the kid's discarded running shoes and toys and in the other - their kitchen, wallpaper pattern, china, table and chairs, if I knew her even remotely... what has she gained by averting her face? the rest of it simply served as a distraction from an other wise very nice picture.

 

And yes PhotoShop can do a lot to edit one's true appearance but ... cropping a picture to edit some of that out might have not only improved the picture but lessened her risk.

 

Ah well... my 2 cents. Naughty A.