Natural Girls

Slight corrective to some of the names above: Serenity has slightly enhanced tits, and Millie Michaels is tattooed.

No one’s mentioned Arura yet, though - all natural, and not a mark on her.

In reply to Chrisst.

It's early morninghere in California, I'm tireed, so this might be a bit incoherent.

My wife did, for a time, glamour modelling - in the page 3 - type sense of it, to supplement her student loan about 8 years ago. There were several reasons she gave up - photographers wanting her to get her boobs enhanced, photographers demanding open-leg shots or insertions, which she refused to do and she had already decided that she would only do it until graduation.

She's very open-minded - it was her who introduced me to the babeshows at the time there were girls who could accentuate sexiness, topless or naked, without being explicit. Her main interets resulting from the modelling point of view, and also she loves sexy lingerie and likes to get ideas.

This thread was started when one evening recently she decided to scan through Rampant (it's the way we get to watch over here in the US) and every girl had distracting tattoos, piercings or enhancements.

Her comment was "why don't the channels employ girls who have the bodies they were given any more?"

She also said, and I agree, that partial nudity - with sexy lingerie can be more arrousing than a naked girl playing with herself. e.g. there used to be a woman called Lexi Diamond on one of the other channels, who was not great looking (in my view) but used to wear some of the most amazing lingerie in a way that was entrancing.

So as much as I think Pippa and Millie are fantastic the tattoos are a complete turn off., unless they are wearing things that hide them. Serenity, as mentioned a bove does have enhancements, but they are not obvious, like, for example, the Ellis sisters.

Apart from a few tattoos and piercings, what about Kady Courtney and Mikaela Witt?

Jess West is all natural, apart from one tattoo on her back

This is worth reading: https://www.ocregister.com/2012/07/12/re...an-tell-2/
Although, mostly not news to me.
I'm often shocked, by how many people can't tell the difference. As often, there are certain key signs, that make it obvious.
However, I'm not averse to women with modifications.
Indeed, as I've repeated, elsewhere on this forum, I have said that, possibly, only fake tan, 'ersatzuma', is a body modification, that is a general turn-off, for me.
Also, eyebrow tattoos, or however, they're named.

Back in the 90s, Score was the first porn magazine, I bought regularly. As I did like, women with large implants.
But I did also buy, Voluptuous, and XL. As I liked, naturally (very) bigger women, too.
Many natural things, I prefer about women: hair, not just on their heads, but on forearms, and pubic hair. I'm not keen on some facial modifications.
I'm black, and have full lips, myself. I prefer women, with similar lips. But not so much, if they have additives, to make them so.

Some of my preferences haven't changed. Although, butt modifications, weren't around in the 90s. Some are good, but too many, less so.
My motto, in these matters, is: the best results are more important than the ingredients.

Nowadays, there are relatively few women in porn, like 90s Score models. There are many more, in the 'bimbofication' scene. Many of whom, don't necessarily have anything to do, with adult entertainment, at all.
I've long thought that ('extreme') femininity, is not necessarily the same as female.
Hence, I am attracted to some trans women. Although, not ones without their bone-us.
Trans women, with or without, their bone-us, are probably about as far from natural, as it gets. But, often, I find that that's a major attraction. In a way, not necessarily true, of bio-women with similar modifications.
Nonetheless, some trans women, like some bio-women, do go too far.