English

This gallery contains 122 images @ 17 megapixels. Sign up now to see them all!


Comments

  • Jman
  • 9 months ago:

This is, by far, the hottest and sexiest photo set of Indiana I have ever seen --- and I've seen all her sets. This is amazing. She is looking fantastic here. WOW.

I am glad to see such appreciation of Indiana - she is divine.

Indiana is a goddess who walks among us mortals. ( :

Perfection does not require dissection -- it speaks for itself.

Not necessarily my favorite set done by Alex. Then again, how can you go wrong with Indiana A., or Angelina B. (FemJoy) she has a body and a graceful way of presenting herself to the camera.

This set showcases a close, tender intimacy I find lacking in many other sets, and symbolizes why I subscribe to met-art - AND is stylistically subtle about it.

Not everybody wants 60 photos per set designed for weirdos to mentally peel apart the lips between a woman's legs - metaphorically cut apart and divided in a sterile lab by an embalmer who esteems himself a scientist. I don't know how Rylsky does this well (and he's the only one, in my opinion) but his models seem to love him. I'd subscribe to RA if that's what I wanted as a staple of a company I patronize.

Maybe I'm not the demographic of the majority of subscribers; I personally never want to see a woman in an "x-rated" position (in my personal life or the internet); there are other sites for that, and even other sites on the company's network. And that's why I don't comment; (most of) the people that comment are not people I'd want to hang out with or chat with at a pub, an inn, or a club (basically any place nor time period in history - no).

I'm more interested in the impressionism, storyline, intelligence, uniqueness in personality, and believing the model feels more beautiful about herself after her session, and that I actually feel, as a viewer, invited into the nakedness in some artistic way. I hate it when a person's transparence while fully clothed impels them to look at me with total consciousness that I see them as though naked. And a nude model conscious of her nakedness in this way belongs in the voyeurism genre.

Conversely I love how a woman, totally naked, wears her body as though she's clothed. And the model does that here, and the photographer actually takes time to celebrate that, entreating the hands, fingertips, necklines, back-lines, breasts (astonishingly undervalued by met-art photographers), and legs (!) - while in the most innocuous of settings and color. It did everything it could do within context of props and lighting shot in, and then some.

You can't effectively shoot "erotic" by fitting a foot to a shoe - Catherine has mentioned many times that there's certain coldness and/or limitation that can't be overcome without time or openness of the model (or models, in the case of some her sets). Intimacy isn't lying naked on the bed. And there's a deeper, intimate erotic aesthetic in this set that many of you critics are completely missing.

Basically, if you're sensitive to the energy of a woman, or art in general ,you'll love how everything is right in this set, and how peaceful, warm, supportive, sexy, and versatile it is. If you're desensitized by the bed of decadence that objectification and artlessness leaves you with - burning, ever burning, ever hungry, never fulfilled - than this set isn't for you. I'm not judging a desire for that kind of titillation, I just find it outrageous to be demanded by a set that's THIS good at EVERYTHING,

I'm certain if people - from photographers to subscribers - spent more time actually appreciating femininity as an energy rather than an empty object, shape, or aesthetic, these models here would have a sparkle happiness and graciousness in their eyes. Instead, they often look very unhappy in their eyes (e.g. the rare beauty Macy B's last tragic set).

We're all entitled to our opinions, but I feel it my duty to give voice, as thoroughly and eloquently as possible, to those of us who feel sets like this helped us better see a woman as a person, and not an object, and learned to better appreciate the women in our own lives as a result.

For the record, for the notice of site admin, for the notice of people who make creepy comments, and those who forgot to slow down and work on fine tuning their senses to subtle, powerful nuances - close study reveals deep appreciation of this set. Thank you. Praiseworthy deserves a few extra words, and I don't apologize for my length or tone.

1. If you make love to a woman in your private life, she is by definition in x-rated positions most of the time.
2. This set captures some of the magic of Indiana, but not nearly as much as her previous outing with Luca Helios—and I'm not talking about T&A.
3. Virtually all of us appreciate femininity as an energy (whatever the hell that means). We're all guilty of objectifying women to some extent, but the best models on MetArt—and Indiana is absolutely one of them—project personalities that we respond to as powerfully as we do to their bodies. They exist in our imaginations as whole women we would like to know, not just as broads we'd like to fuck.
4. Please stop drowning what should be a pleasant experience in preachy, impenetrable verbiage. You make a few good points and many obvious ones and take too long to do both.

Sorry for my preachy tone, but I found your screed offensive.

The "last tragic set" of Macy B? Bullshit. I just looked at it. It's as beautiful as I remembered it, and so is she. Any tragedy you saw is purely in your mind. The rest of us saw a beautiful woman beautifully photographed.

I don't know if I was included among the commentators your wouldn't like to hang out with, but I hope I was. The point of this web site is to celebrate the female body and feminine sexuality. That's what most of us do—including the pussy, by the way, which is a truly beautiful thing, in real life or on the internet. There are a few vulgarians among us, but most of us are motivated by love—both of the many women we've known in our lives (every one in x-rated positions) and of the ones we celebrate here. This isn't Agnes of God, for chrissake, it's about celebrating the beauty of sex.

Thanks Sailor, you actually expressed my reactions much better than I managed to. ( :
Sex is a wonderful and a beautiful thing.
Certainly there are monsters out there who prey on others sexually... but I genuinely believe that if we as a society were less prudish/puritanical about sex and sexuality, sexual perversion and victimization would lose much of its power, and we would be able to confront it a lot more effectively ~ if only because we'd be willing and able to TALK IT OVER and figure out what makes the monsters tick.
And the things that make sex possible ~ bodies ~ are beautiful things as well ~ both in "design" and in function, as well as appearance.
Those of us who see a woman's body as a beautiful thing not only in an abstract/philosophical sense, but also in a functional and sexual sense, have nothing to be ashamed of, IMO.
I wouldn't have objected to jharris' comment, had he not had the condescending/superior attitude toward other members.
Otherwise, he makes some good points.

  • Doug
  • 9 months ago:

Yes, and don't forget the most important bodily organ of them all -- the mind -- or should I say brain -- or whatz in your head :-)
Sexual imagination, IOW :-)

Absolutely, Doug... I forget who it is who said,
"the brain is the most powerful sexual organ."
Definitely true. ( :

jharris, you have certainly stated your case very well, and very eloquently, and I salute you for doing so.
I agree with much of what you say. One area I take issue with you is lumping all of us together. I think there is a pretty diverse spectrum of members on MA, who visit for many different reasons.
I think there are many of us who find the art part of met art to be quite appealing, and find that it enhances our experience of these sets.
I think there are many of us here who completely respect the models and the artists ~ and don't think of them simply as pieces of meat.
All I am saying is that you ~ SEEM to be ~ painting with a pretty broad brush in your comments above... is that truly your intent? Do you really believe you are the only one here who appreciates the models as more than just naked bodies, or naked body parts?
Having asked that question, I once again congratulate you for stating your case and stating it very eloquently.

Please pardon the duplication (triplication really) of my response... it was unintentional! The comment gremlins got me tonight!

  • Doug
  • 10 months ago:

I didn't read it thinking he thought he was the only one who felt that way. I don't imagine someone with his intelligence and sensitivity would think that.

I hope you're right, Doug... I felt just a little condescension and judgment in that comment, almost like he was criticizing those of us who ~ and I admit I do ~ like to look at pretty ladies' private parts, as if we should be ashamed of that.
I got enough of that attitude as a child growing up going to church. That's part of the reason I don't go to church anymore ~ I am not ashamed of my sexuality, and I don't listen to those who tell me to be ashamed of it.
Do I come to MA to satisfy my sexuality? Damn right I do, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I do agree with most of jharris' comments, I merely disagree with the unspoken but implied condescension and judgment of people who feel differently about erotica than he does.

  • Doug
  • 9 months ago:

Yeah, I can see what you mean. Sometimes the truth doesn't come all sugar-coated :-)
And he's making a rare point, so I'll cut him a little slack as far as being a bit offensive to some of us. I'm fascinated by certain pussy shots -- I don't know if they're x-rated -- I guess they are :-) -- but I am also sorry to see when a girl looks simply exploited -- and sometimes it seems more by herself than anyone or anything else. Frankly, some MetArt models look to me like prostitutes -- and that repels me.
And yet I see praises to their beauty sung, and that's where I part company with some on this site. But there is no arguing about taste, beauty, etc. So it's OK. It intensifies what I like all the more.

You make really good points, Doug, and I think I was being ~ ever so slightly ~ (LOL) oversensitive. ( : I'm sure jharris wasn't criticizing all of us (though he does mention that most of us are not the kind of people he'd want to ~ ever ~ hang out with in any capacity ~ and to me, that's pretty damn judgmental, not knowing anything about us other than that we subscribe to MA). So maybe I need to grow a thicker skin.
As to the objectification/exploitation of the models? Yeah, I think you're right. I think it happens, and it is always going to happen in the erotica/porn market (and I do see them both as points on the same spectrum).
I don't see it being a matter of girls doing it to themselves... I think it is sometimes a matter of allowing it to happen, in order to better their own personal circumstances, for whatever reason... to help pay for college, or just to put food on the table, or to help their families... or, just because they want to party a bit. What's wrong with that as a motive? I don't see a problem.
More, I see the fact that young women can be exploited as a factor endemic in our society, which puts women into an impossible "madonna/whore" double-bind... they can be good, which means asexual and yet motherly, or they can be "bad," which means pretty much everything else, including things we respect and admire men for...
Well, I guess I'm rambling here. I guess to wrap up I'd just say that I'd ask jharris to examine his motive behind saying that he'd never want to associate with most of us, who also belong to the same website he himself is a member in... he may feel superior to most of us, but is he genuinely superior or morally better? I really don't know...

  • Doug
  • 9 months ago:

I don't really care about whether he's a snob or not -- I was just glad to hear him give voice to certain less overtly sexual or carnal things about attractive women.

Been thinking about it and I guess what REALLY gets my goat about jharris' remarks is that what he seems to be implying is (something like) this:
"Hey, I'm a member of MA, and I look at the same pictures of nude women as you all do, but I don't do it to get a sexual thrill, so that makes me better than those of you who get a sexual thrill looking at these pictures."
I guess I can't believe that someone would buy a subscription to MA for JUST the art, and totally disregard all the "T&A" factor... and not get turned on by it. To me, to claim that sounds just a little hollow.
Regardless, for someone who is essentially a consumer of erotica to criticize those of us who are also consumers of erotica just logically doesn't make sense.
Should we be enlightened and not be rude and crude in our comments/discussions about the models? Absolutely. But the comment section is overwhelmingly positive when it comes to the models, IMO.
When MA first rolled out the comment section, I was worried that all the guys would get rude, crude and filthy, and it would be raunchy and not at all enjoyable. Guess what... most of the guys who comment are pretty damn classy about it, and when they get non-classy, the rest of the guys pile on 'em and we kinda regulate ourselves.
So jharris' criticisms of us ~ outright and veiled ~ just don't sit well with me.
OK, rant over. Sorry so long-winded.

jharris, you have certainly stated your case very well, and very eloquently, and I salute you for doing so.
I agree with much of what you say. One area I take issue with you is lumping all of us together. I think there is a pretty diverse spectrum of members on MA, who visit for many different reasons.
I think there are many of us who find the art part of met art to be quite appealing, and find that it enhances our experience of these sets.
I think there are many of us here who completely respect the models and the artists ~ and don't think of them simply as pieces of meat.
All I am saying is that you ~ SEEM to be ~ painting with a pretty broad brush in your comments above... is that truly your intent? Do you really believe you are the only one here who appreciates the models as more than just naked bodies, or naked body parts?
Having asked that question, I once again congratulate you for stating your case and stating it very eloquently.

jharris, you have certainly stated your case very well, and very eloquently, and I salute you for doing so.
I agree with much of what you say. One area I take issue with you is lumping all of us together. I think there is a pretty diverse spectrum of members on MA, who visit for many different reasons.
I think there are many of us who find the art part of met art to be quite appealing, and find that it enhances our experience of these sets.
I think there are many of us here who completely respect the models and the artists ~ and don't think of them simply as pieces of meat.
All I am saying is that you ~ SEEM to be ~ painting with a pretty broad brush in your comments above... is that truly your intent? Do you really believe you are the only one here who appreciates the models as more than just naked bodies, or naked body parts?
Having asked that question, I once again congratulate you for stating your case and stating it very eloquently.

I do so agree! I have grown tired of seeing sets with multiple shots, virtually the same image...All close-ups of pussy or tits! I already know what these look like, I don't need redundant photos to remind me!

  • Doug
  • 9 months ago:

Especially when a model has a highly expressive face or eyes. When "somebody's home upstairs" it's a shame to ignore her.

Fortunately, Indiana is like a comet and return periodically.
Beautiful and restful Indiana with the child's face and the physical of the mannequin.
Smiling and uninhibited seems fun to show up naked.
A set completely enjoyable.

I love this set. Indiana is perfect and it shows what one can do with a simple set, proper lighting and an great poses. R rated shots with a few X leave one's imagination to wander. Great use of her incredible face and beautiful leaning forward shots that show her breasts in all their glory.

GREAT !!!

We have Indiana ---

Where is Anita E ?????

Beautiful girl, who could not fall in love with that face and wry smile? Well, those two square inches DO matter, 5seadog. What we do see is stunning, however. More of her next time? Pleeeeeze?

I totally agree, RedPilot ~ I for one adore those 2 square inches of paradise. ( :
I dare to believe that most of the subscribers to MA like to view those 2 square inches, and if MA didn't show a fair number of pictures of it, they wouldn't have as many members.
I don't think showing it, or showing it often, is a problem.
I think it's all about HOW you show it. And MA and its photographers do a classy job of it.

I do think there is a valid distinction between "erotic art" and porn... but, I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with porn.
I DO think that many members of MA are tired of porn and actually enjoy the more artistic and discrete approach to erotic art that MA presents.

  • Doug
  • 9 months ago:

That last part is absolutely correct with me. I feel like a refugee from porn. I will still enjoy it on occasion, but let's just say it's not as "uplifting" as my favorite stuff on this site -- -- Let me rephrase that :-) No matter what happens when I look at my favorite MetArt model (you know who she is) I don't feel debased afterwards. That's what romantic love -- whatever form it takes -- will do for ya :-)

The little smile adds a lot throughout the set. Still a 10.

Indiana is a totally beautiful Model. If she was not working in other parts of the Met universe as Belle I would definitely be feeling deprived. As it is,we can get lovely Indiana/Belle more than once or twice a year. Since Indiana has other beautiful places on her body besides the 2 square inches so many people here gripe about, I am very satisfied with both the lovely Indiana and Alex Sironi.

In case you are wondering, she is on EA as Belle, and has some beautiful sets there. She is very beautiful, has the hot redhead category pretty well sewed up,very much like Iveta and Danae take care of the blondes on EA and Lenora Garcia takes care of brunettes on sex art, Met art, and anywhere else she can get in.

I agree too conservative, beautiful women but posed very poorly? I expected more... this is PG rated at best

  • Neil
  • 10 months ago:

This lady who calls herself Indiana is a supremely beautiful woman. Wonderful red hair, perfect feminine figure and a personality that can melt the camera, the computer screen and your heart.

What a lovely face you have. Your smile is irresistible. A real treat to see you again, beautiful Indiana.

It's always a pleasure to see more of this wondrous beauty, although there is for me a deficit of explicit poses in this set, Indiana's presence and beautiful demeanour always delight.

This is almost an R rated set. Though she is naked through most of the set there are very few shots that truly are X rated. Only 4 that actually show that lovely flower. Very repetitive poses with none that show the fire Indy is capable of, Not at all what I would consider erotic.

Disappointing

I have grown tired of X Rated sets! I don't need redundant shots of pussy or tits. R-rated is good for me!

I agree. This is not at all what I would expect from Indiana and certainly not typical of photography by Alex S.

Wouldn't you love to kiss every freckle on that beautiful face? I would. I like everything about this exquisite woman: her long, delicious legs; her sly, smartass little smile; the twinkle in those gorgeous eyes. This set is not as good as Indiana's last a couple of months ago, but it still makes my day. 10 forever.

Sailor, swplf2 used to comment on almost all your posts but I haven't seen anything from in a while now.
I hope he's o.k. (and still a member).

So do I. He seemed to drop off the map about a week ago. I miss him. He didn't just comment about my posts, he generated a dialogue among all of us.

Thanks Sailor, fer_realz is going to check over on Rylsky Art and see if he might be there.

I just hope he and his wife (whole family actually) are o.k.
He always joked about being a member of the "old man's club", or something similar.

He hasn't been at RA either. I'm a member there. He was a member at SexArt. I'm not. Do you know anyone who is?

Sailor and Browning, I checked RA but it's hard to tell if he's been there because I can't be sure he's using the same screen name...
I'm no longer a member of SA so I don't know if he's made any comments there in the last few days.
Having said that....
Have any of you others who are members on SA as well seen/heard from swlpf2 the last few days?

The incomparable, the inimitable, the peerless Indiana. Totally au naturel. The world is a happy place this morning. ( :




Access The Full Set Of 122 Images By Joining MetArt Today!
CLICK for FREE ACCESS