A lot has been made of late about deviants critiquing the model rather than the work, or the photographer, editing, or its value as art. A couple of basic facts: if the model is pleasing to the eye, the piece of work as a whole is likely to be as well. I have read numerous journal entries where the author is going off about picking on the models, practice which is wrong, by the way. If you've nothing good to say, then say nothing at all.
Everyone has personal tastes and opinions; mine are fairly obvious by whose work I tend to add to my favorites collection. I tend to prefer models who are unenhanced. Women are much more beautiful in their natural state, in my opinion. I'm also not a huge fan of too much ink or body piercings, but again, that's only my opinion. Both of these are a deeply personal choice made by the individual woman. There a great many artists out there, all of whom do excellent work, that bring a certain "something" to their work, whether by use of lighting, composition or subject choice. I can spot a Hammond work a mile away. Ditto for deviations from Photoduality.
I suppose the point, if any, of this entry, or, if you prefer, rant is an attempt to keep some form of civility and objectivity when commenting on people's work. Women have enough image issues without someone telling them they do not measure up to some arbitrary standard. Instead, let's appreciate their willingness to share their beauty with us. Thanks for reading!