Yes! that's Shane & Jack all right, here's another one!
And that's why we have a dispute. Compare the first picture with the second: 1) the backdrop is different; 2) the male hands are dressed; 3) the second model shows stretch marks, likely from a recent birth; 4) her nails are shorter; 5) the "wedding ring" is flat, not reflective; and 6) the areolae appear larger.
All of the identity problems flow from Jack's practice of obscuring his model's face(s). Any of the differences listed above could be because the pictures are from different shoots (which must be assumed, because the model's underwear is different). It is known that Jack worked with several women, and that the later model, or her photographer, worked hard to duplicate the shoots. BDSM photography was not popular with law enforcement in the UK in the 1950s, nor in the US in the 1970s*, so I suppose I can understand the practice of hiding the model's face, but despite my obssession with boobs, faces are good for identification.
----------
*--P.s.: As an example, anyone who saw the HBO biography of Bettie Page may recall that it was her B&D photos that excited the interest of Senator Estes Kevefauver enough in the late 1950s that he had his committee spend several months "investigating" B&D porn. After he died several books revealed what had, I gather, been an open secret around D.C.: Kevefauver's sex life was more kinky and promiscuous than the people he was investigating. Maybe as kinky and promiscuous as David Vitter.