Liya Silver's tits? Why, indeed, one of my favorite subjects. Allow me to hijack!
onikks wrote: Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:15 am
I love Liya Silver too, she is going to appear in the next episode. I’m looking for models with her type of tits for the next one, so suggestions are welcome!
A short discussion about tits of her type has arisen at Empornium, in which several other models are suggested (and if you'd like to get the list, if you can log in there, here is the link --
https://www.empornium.me/torrents.php?i ... ost2197544 ). I am personally still at odds exactly how to describe them, for they cross several categories. First, Liya Silver's tits are not of exactly the description "large natural" by which the internet usually curates some tits. The term "large natural" goes more along the lines of Gianna Michaels, in my opinion. Even bigger "huge natural" would be Lucy Wilde. But those tits fall toward Earth, whereas there's something gravity-defying or, otherwise, magically "the way they should be" about Liya Silver's tits, for me. Perfect? But you can't just use the adjective "perfect," since plenty of other guys would have plenty of other opinions about which types are more perfect than which other types.
According to this article --
https://www.thejournal.ie/different-typ ... 6-Mar2016/ -- there are only seven types: round; East-West; side-set; asymmetric; bell; slender; tear-drop. Not enough variation in there for me. I suppose the article might be helpful for buying brassieres (I wouldn't know), but it's not very helpful for ogling porn. I think porn-oglers must need to know so much more, for example, the amount of descent and the amount of ascent, the roundness or rotundity, the distance between the two tits as well as the distance across one tit chosen representatively from among the two, the resistance to gravity (or failure there-of), symmetry of the pair, proportionality of the pair to the woman and her ass, further, the size height direction color arch pyramidicality and so-forth of the nipples, the firmness (firmness can be further categorized, so long as only appreciated visually, as to whether the firmness be assessed under application of no pressure or under application of various increasing degrees of pressure and under application of various increasing sizes of areas of pressure, all experimentally demonstrated clearly if possible with ongoing visual stimulus). And of course, size -- size of orb, size of fat-pad, size of area on the chest, size of forward thrust, size of lateral thrust, size of lowering downwards due to gravity, cup size, nipple size, aureola size, size size size, size. So many details, so little time! You get my point.
One of my research interests has become something I now identify as the "tit to chest connection zone." I find that almost all natural (and natural-looking) tits will be relatively appealing to me, to a greater degree, if the base of the tit is wide. I don't generally like "skinny" or "long" tits (the "slender" of the article is, perhaps, the least appealing of the seven types, to me) though "large" remains (generally) appealing. Part of what I tend to find unappealing about breasts which have undergone fake-breast augmentation procedures is not the resulting breast itself, as much as the resulting narrower connection zone. When a tit is enlarged but the connection zone is not, then, the connection-zone ratio falls to its detriment. Best ratio would always be one-to-one. I have over time tried to identify for what reason(s) a given visual tit impression would cause more or less positive impact for me.
I think it goes like this. If the area of rib-cage-based connective tissue that attaches to the round orb of the remainder of the tit is, itself, as wide in circumference as the round orb of the tit itself, then I define that this particular tit has a connection zone which is large. And contrary, if the area of rib-cage-based connective tissue is small, either narrower than the tit's orb or, just somehow narrow relative to the whole of the accompanying chest, rib-cage, torso, or woman, then I say this is a smaller connection zone.
It's a bit difficult to describe. So let's take an example or two. Wonderful connection zone with fulsome presentation, to the widest and greatest possibility, would be Dillion Harper and Hayden Winters. Middling to poor connection zone would be Whitney Westgate and Natalia Starr. (I find both Whitney and Natalia extremely attractive, by the way, despite poor connection zone characteristics.) Generally I would find it detrimental for a tit to have either a narrow connection zone or a poor connection-zone ratio (the ratio being, the comparison between, on the one hand, tit's rounded orb at the bottom or at roundest part, versus, on the other hand, width of tissue there at the rib-cage where tit attaches to rest of human). So, the different varieties of connection zone can be seen in comparison between Dillion Harper and Hayden Winters, with good connection zone, and Natalia Starr and Whitney Westgate, with bad connection zone. The latter two have narrow connection zones, of different types. Whitney Westgate's type is an overall narrowness. Her entire tits are narrow, with a large gap between them. Natalia Starr's type is a narrow zone but with larger orbs. I'm not sure if the connection zone narrowness appears, to me, to be of greater detriment for Whitney Westgate, whose connection zones and tits match one another in width and yet are slightly unappealingly narrow; or for Natalia Starr, whose connection zone is narrow despite having wider orbs to her overall tits, and who therefore presents a poor ratio in the comparison between each of her individual tits and its connection zone. Is it narrowness as a raw measure that is of greater detriment, or is it narrowness in ratio to comparable wideness nearby that is of greater detriment? And by the way, neither is of huge detriment to the models in question. But on different people, the tits would be gravely disappointing, I think, due somehow or other to narrowness in connection zone. Whereas on different people, the tits of Dillion Harper and Hayden Winters would be, to me, just as stellar and as sexually stimulating regardless of the new host. Thus, I learn, tit connection zone has large bearing on my preference for type of tits.
What about you? What are your necessary or independent tit characteristics? Is there a certain aspect that must not be neglected? Another aspect which you care only small amount to consider? Particular aspects which might ruin an entire show, or completely convince you the show is a success? A short phrase should be coined, to describe the sort of tit which Liya Silver displays, a phrase which gives ample reference to all that is positive about the type, but which also restricts the category to those tits which mimic the type in only beneficial characteristics, and which also does not unreasonably limit the category from certain other viable member tits. Gravity-defying? Upright? Large and upright? Large upright and gravity-defying? Pendulous but vertical? Pendulous but not saggy? Whangers? Boingy? This is an important topic and perhaps deserves its own thread.
Standing by for a new projects :3