Big Tits: Is Showing Less Sometimes MORE?
Ashley Sage is showing zero cleavage, tit or areolae in this shot and it's STILL hot.
When a woman has a big set of tits and she is wearing a low-cut top, or showing off a lot of cleavage, you LOOK. I mean, we discussed this in my blog about “The Decision.” A set of nice tits that are blatantly out there for you to look at, well, they are there for you to LOOK at. It’s hot. It’s provocative. It’s definitely meant to push your buttons. A chick WANTS you to look.
But what about when a chick shows nada, zilch, zero?
What if the only indication of a woman’s breasts is the silhouette of her body and that’s it?
Is showing less sometimes more?
I mean, take a look at Ashley Sage to the left. Her upper body? It’s completely covered up. Not one bit of tit flesh for your eyes to roam over, but yet, there is a fucking hotness about that shot. Just the imprint of her mountainous hooters is promise enough.
I think so.
Is showing less really more?
I looked through a hundred big-tit shots today of models pulling their nipples, lifting their breasts up, jumping, squeezing their boobs together, oiling them…and this shot of Ashley in that sweater kept calling my attention.
Is it because I see tits all day and this covered-up shot is now NOT the norm, therefore more provocative? Maybe. But maybe not. I think that if we were to post this shot on a billboard visible from a crowded street that most people would see it and say, “Holy crap! That chick has massive tits!” or, “Look at her boobs!” Even though she is totally covered up.
Granted, Ashley Sage is a full 36J and those gunboats are stuffed into this thin, white sweater. So maybe this kind of shot only works with a chick with massive hooters? Is that the magic behind this?
Would you look at this shot, would it call your attention if her tits were DD-cup instead?
Once again, I think so. I think that the silhouette of a nice pair of tits is just as powerful as the Full Monty.
What do you think? Is less sometimes more? Chime in.
xoxo
Maria