|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Kate Middleton Thread |
| 1-36 of 36 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 09-17-12 03:47pm - 4441 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
jberryl69 (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,000 Registered: Nov 27, '10 Location: neverland |
Kate Middleton Thread The news media has, again, over hashed Kate's breast story. It is such a cultural/religious thing, where men's nudity from the waist up is acceptable but women are taboo from exposing their chest because it's sexual. Anyone see a double standard here? Or is it just men's rules that count? Anyone bother to even go look up the photos? ... and if you did, why? It kind of gets under my skin a bit that people, including Kate and her Prince, let that get the better of them, though the issue of intrusion of privacy by the paparazzi is well documented in his family. They (the paparazzi) just piss me off - (thank Gawd I'm not famous) - and the Italian media mogul who printed them a drippy butt wipe. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee. If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat! | |
|
||
| 09-17-12 05:59pm - 4441 days | #2 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
What bugs me about the whole thing is that there is obviously a market for this sort of thing. I can definitely understand any red-blooded male being interested in seeing a beautiful young woman topless, but that's pretty easy to do without having to resort to being a Peeping Tom. These paparazzi should be ashamed of themselves. And one article I read in a newspaper noted that with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles becoming more common, famous folks may find themselves being spied on in places where it couldn't happen before. Sick, sick, sick! | |
|
||
| 09-17-12 06:43pm - 4441 days | #3 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Actually what bothered me the most when I first heard the story was that a pretty important person had her security put at risk when a man(I assume) got nto a private estate and took pictures of the couple on what i belive was their honeymoon. There might even be a sex tape. I think that there should be some serious repercussion directed at paparazzi's. What if this guy had a rifle instead of a camera and zoom? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-17-12 09:29pm - 4440 days | #4 | |
|
rjmcgill (0)
Active User Posts: 1 Registered: Jul 08, '12 Location: Marlton, NJ |
Haven't even bothered to look at them. To me, I would much rather see a willing party in photo's. Kate is a very pretty girl, but if she were my daughter a paparazzi what ever they are called with a telephoto lens from a mile off. Really dude, grow a pair and just go ask her if she would like to pose for your camera. . Love me some Kate, but don't want to aid in these invasions of privacy. I say cut out there nads so they can't pollute the rest of the world with the likes of these low lifes. | |
|
||
| 09-18-12 02:03am - 4440 days | #5 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User  Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
Wow, not a single person standing up for the Paparazzi, I actually didn't expect that. Well I will. Perhaps it isn't the most honorable job, but they are a testament to how free Western society really is these days. As always, I hold freedom of speech as the highest of rights. Kate is perfectly within her rights to take her top off in France, it is sort of thing over there. The Paparazzi are within their rights to use a Telephoto lens that would shame the Hubble to try to capture her with her top off. As for the security issue: she wasn't shot, her security did their job. My guess is they knew about the Paparazzi and didn't think they'd actually be able to get a quality photo from that distance. Oh, and yes, I did look at the photos - I always check out celebrity nudes. Usually they are disappointment's, but my curiosity gets the better of me. She as a respectable, if not epic, pair - she should feel comfortable at the beach. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 09-18-12 05:14am - 4440 days | #6 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I regard the royals as parasites, who are paid to breed. I may feel a little sorry for celebrities who have their privacy invaded at times, but not worried about prostitutes having photos of their breasts published. | |
|
||
| 09-18-12 08:06am - 4440 days | #7 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I think that society more now then possibly ever has blurred the lines of reality and fantasy when it comes to celebrities. I was watchin ( American Chopper its a motorcycle building show) I digress, and the main guy has three sons that have been on the show for years. It goes along with there lives and troubles just like most reality shows, however the youngest son on camera said he was leaving the show, What is odd about this is he is telling on camera he wants a relationship with his father and he can not while the show is part of his life. See if a celeb, can get blurred lines within their own family so must it be easy for the public to see them as part of their lives. Back to this picture thing, the photographer used this same fucked up logic, that they are on public TV so therefore they have no right to a normal life off camera. I for one found the whole thing disgusting, this happened to Janet Jackson before the wardrobe malfunction, she was taped nude on her patio sun bathing why her workers video taped her. This too for some twisted fucked up idea these workers though that was ok. Another was a camera man spraying Tom Cruise in the face with a squirt gun to record his reaction. Who does this kinda shit and thinks it is ok. So society is in a world of hurt, the lines are blurred and it will take more then duct tape to repair the fucked up twisted fuckers out their. Fame comes at a huge cost now days, I think I would rather be poor then rich and my rights and life stripped from me ! Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 09-18-12 10:20am - 4440 days | #8 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I won't discuss the merrits of paparrazi's because I don't believe there are any but Kate did not take her top off in a public place but on a very very private estate where said paparrazi's could not have legally gotten access to. I'd have no issue if she or anyone else went to a public beach and took their top off and then hd their picture taken because there is nothing illegal per say. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-18-12 11:50am - 4440 days | #9 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
Royalty haven't the luxury of privacy. If she wanted to ensure that nobody outside of the prince and her doctor were to see her nude, then she could have disrobed indoors. The photos were obviously taken from a great distance, so I doubt the paparazzi in question did anything illegal. Granted they are considering a lawsuit, but that is a far cry from criminal charges. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 09-18-12 03:40pm - 4440 days | #10 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I did some research on this apparently there is a dozen picture in a tabloid type magazine, and the picture were indeed taken at my guess over 1000 yards and cropped the crap out of even zoomed. It would appear about 3 football fields away. And was either taken in helicopter or a very high hill based on the trajectory needed to get the angle of a shot like that which appears some degree off the ground and the shot is not taken looking up, but appear at a even angle. Ya too much time on my hands, but I love to take pictures and hand me picking this apart. And does not appear it was taken from anywhere near their property unless they used a cheap camera which I doubt. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 09-18-12 10:40pm - 4439 days | #11 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
I don't really understand why this is such a big deal, celebrities go topless on beaches and in foreign countries all the time, sometimes photos are taken. Whether it was a private property or not, I'd be surprised if there weren't other people around (security, other guests), and she was comfortable with that, so who cares? I don't feel like looking, but I'm going to guess this kind of crap happens all the time in France. I'm not a fan of paparazzi, and think they often endanger their targets or other bystanders, but in this celebrity obsessed society we all live in, I don't see them going away, and in this case I really just don't get the big hullabaloo. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 09-19-12 01:02am - 4439 days | #12 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
I was actually realizing that I own almost all the equipment necessary to take that photo. I have a Tamron 200-500mm Zoom AF Lens that is literally worth more than my camera, I just need to get a 2x Teleconverter to boost the lens to 1000mm then mount it on my tripod and I could get almost the same shot. The Sydney Morning Herald did a nice article on the photos and theorized that the photographer was using a 600mm Telephoto with a 2x teleconverter. They say a lens like that (which costs about $25,000.00 USD) attached to a high resolution camera (Nikon is selling 36 Megapixel cameras now) could take the photo from 800 to 1300 meters away. (0.5 - 0.8 miles) Though they mention that a drone was possibly used, but I doubt it because that would have really gotten interest from security. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo Edited on Sep 19, 2012, 01:11am (Toadsith: Fixed brand name.) | |
|
||
| 09-19-12 06:51am - 4439 days | #13 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
I don't get the fascination with poorly-shot un-posed upskirts and nipslips and flashes of nudity. Just the fact that someone is a celeb doesn't make every move they make fair game and it doesn't make every flash of skin erotic. There have been celebs, like Jessica Alba, that have played to the paps on the beach etc and some pretty erotic material was the result: http://www.thesuperficial.com/enlargedar...ikini-candids-04.jpg But a lot of this paparazzi telephoto-lens stuff - bleh! Kate M should be left alone and photographed at public events when she's got herself all primped and polished and looking her best. | |
|
||
| 09-19-12 07:04am - 4439 days | #14 | |
|
jberryl69 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,000 Registered: Nov 27, '10 Location: neverland |
Ok Squirrel, but how do you really feel.  If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat! | |
|
||
| 09-19-12 07:23pm - 4439 days | #15 | |
|
JayUK (0)
Active User Posts: 9 Registered: May 30, '10 Location: Suffolk England |
I think the point that we are all missing is not so much about the intrusion into a young womens privacy. It is more likely to be about the man she is married to, and in turn who his mother was and how she died. Although not completely to blame the paparazzi weren't entirely faultless that fatefull night in Paris. This man above most others has every right to hate the paparazzi and all they stand for and has remained dignified throughout all of it. (How would you feel knowing that as your mother was dying inside the car these lowlife were still taking pictures of her? Thank god no one has published any of these, sadly though I am sure given enough time somebody will.) Surley now though enough is enough. They hounded his mother all of her adult life and now seem intent on doing the same to his wife. I sincerely hope they catch the man who took and sold these pictures and make an example of him through the courts. I am no royalist by the way and believe these people to be a drain on our society. I am also no great fan of princess Diana and believe that she manipulated the press to suit her own needs. I am however a firm believer of human rights and everybody should have the right to protect their privacy no matter who they are. The fact that these pictures were taken fron the distance that they were would suggest to any right minded person they they were not okay with them being taken or there publication. Prince William was born into this life he didn't choose it and just because he is privilledged compared to the vast majority of people that doesn't mean he has forfieted his or his wifes basic human rights. In my opinion paparrazi and all those associated with this kind of journalism are the lowest of the low and should be ashamed of themselves. Whatever happened to decent investigative journalism in the world. If this was an art still practiced we wouldn't have the great injustices in the world that we have now. (well not all of them anyway). The whole Rupert Murdoch affair in the UK recently has highlighted this and how corruption goes to the highest level of our society. Add to that the recent findings in the Hillsborough cover up and the families' 23 year search for the truth despite little or no help from the mainsteam media which was eventually obtained thanks to the internet and a massive E-petition (god bless the internet it's not just for porn after all  ) Apologies to anybody outside of the UK who doesn't know what Hillsborough is or was. I urge you to look it up though as after a lot of time the documents from that day have finally been released by our government here in the UK and it doesn't make pleasant reading. Forged documents, police statements changed by higher ranking officers, evidence buried etc etc etc. This was all done to avert the blame from the authorities and on to the common man as is sadly so often the case.Sorry rant over | |
|
||
| 09-20-12 02:41am - 4438 days | #16 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
Holy wall of text Batman!  The paparazzi are certainly rather relentless and occasionally they go beyond the realm of what is legal. However, Royalty and celebrities, the latter whose job is based on their popularity in the media, and the former whose entire life is a government institution, have no reasonable reason to expect privacy in any outdoors location on the planet. The intense media interest surrounding them is not a symptom of their lives, it is one of the foundations of their lives. I do not care that most of the Royalty are born into their titles, their lives are so outrageously privileged that they should be able to weather some rude folks with cameras. I find appeals to our humanity with stories of the trials and tribulations of life in front of a paparazzi's lens ridiculous and factitious. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 09-20-12 06:30am - 4438 days | #17 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I agree about the Hillsborough case, but to compare that with the death of an over privileged person who married for money and position actually highlights the difference between those who seek fame and fortune, and those who end up in the press due to unfortunate or tragic circumstances. The press could have helped to seek justice but didn't. The media is owned by the rich and privilleged, and that's who they are batting for. Rather ironic that those the paparazzi make money out of, are the rich and privileged. Diana was in a car supposedly fleeing the press, not some crazed gunman, mugger, or rapist. She was in no physical danger, unlike those at Hillsborough. I regarded her death as meaning there was one less undemocratic parasite to pay for. I agree with Toadsith's comment " The intense media interest surrounding them is not a symptom of their lives, it is one of the foundations of their lives. I do not care that most of the Royalty are born into their titles, their lives are so outrageously privileged that they should be able to weather some rude folks with cameras. I find appeals to our humanity with stories of the trials and tribulations of life in front of a paparazzi's lens ridiculous and factitious." Couldn't have put that better myself. The only thing I would add about the royals is we are given no choice but to pay for them. It's a history of inbreeding, thuggery, stealing, murder, invasion, pillaging, raping, and slavery. After all that they declare themselves, "royal." That the British public do too, shows how stupid some of them are. I'm not one of them. | |
|
||
| 09-20-12 09:39am - 4438 days | #18 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
As the Royal family costs an average of 65p per year per tax payer and the Queen pays income tax on her private income (not her state income obviously, as that comes from tax) which reduces that cost even further, I'm really not bothered about paying for the Royal family. However I do strongly believe that the civil list should be kept to a tight minimum. If we had some other Head of State (like a President as they have in France) then the running costs in terms of security, staff, buildings, travel etc. would be roughly the same. Most Presidents seem to cost considerably more to run than our Queen and they have a greater element of self interest. I'm not worried about the Queen granting favours to big business to increase her wealth when she retires (like most politicians do) because she's not going to retire. My main complaint about the Royal family is that she is also the head of the Church of England. I'm hoping Charles or William severe that daft link. With less than 50% of the UK population believing in any deity (and still falling) it's time for the Monarchy to modernise and drop the religion link. But then I also believe religions in the UK should lose their automatic tax breaks. That would raise a HUGE amount more money than the Royal family cost us. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 09-20-12 10:11am - 4438 days | #19 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
I thought that really had to be turned into a T-Shirt:  "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 09-20-12 11:04am - 4438 days | #20 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Nice one Toadsith. I reckon you could be on to a merchandise winner there! | |
|
||
| 09-20-12 06:29pm - 4438 days | #21 | |
|
JayUK (0)
Active User Posts: 9 Registered: May 30, '10 Location: Suffolk England |
I think my last point was either misunderstood or I didn't explain myself as clearly as I thought. I was in no way attempting to compare the death of princess Diana to the tragic events at Hillsborough, to do so would be insulting to the families of those who died and a ridiculous comparison to make. The point I was trying to make is the very rapid decline in the standard of journalism in the world. The all to familiar sight of some minor celebrities with their tits out is now more interesting to the average person growing up today than any world event outside of their own country. I also agree that some people actively seek the attention therefore waving their rights to complain when the hand that feeds them bites back. However to say that these people have also given up that right because of their privilledged background is not the same thing. Their are many other people in this world whose background is equally as privilledged (Richard Bransons kids etc etc). Would it also be fair to suggest that they too are fair game because of it? Yes they are in the public domain but they didn't choose to be it comes with the territory it's not like they get a choice. Whilst I agree that they abuse the position they are in sometimes and do live the kind of lifestle that we can only dream of I still feel that their basic human rights should still stand. That being said I too long for the day that we no longer have a royal family that we are subsidising but sadly that does not look like happening anytime soon. It's not as if the government or MPS' have covered themselves in glory in recent times and can be left to run affairs either so I am not sure where that leaves us?? | |
|
||
| 09-20-12 06:58pm - 4438 days | #22 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
You get no argument there. Looking at the reasons behind that, you just have to look at who owns the media, and the intelligence levels of those who buy newspapers. | |
|
||
| 09-20-12 09:49pm - 4437 days | #23 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
I believe any invasion of privacy upon the children of celebrities is largely the responsibility of their parents. Their parents made a series of decisions to become and/or remain celebrities, and thereby decided to bring their children into that lifestyle with all of its advantages and disadvantages. The decisions of the parents have long lasting repercussions on their children, well into adulthood. Once the children are legally adults, they then have to decide how to handle their inherited celebrity. If they have a strong distaste for the ills of the lifestyle, there are usually plenty of opportunities to make themselves less accessible and less interesting to the paparazzi. I will grant you that they cannot simply snap their fingers and make the paparazzi go away; it will be an involved process. Is it fair that the interest of the paparazzi gets passed from parent to child? I argue "yes", because interest from the paparazzi rarely comes without benefits. Can it be a great burden for the children? Certainly - but they also had the opportunity to go to any college they wished and probably pursue any career that interested them. Children don't get to choose their parents, they have to make do with the environment they are raised in. I contend that those raised in a paparazzi saturated environment generally have superior opportunities and greater quality of life than those that are not. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 09-21-12 10:02am - 4437 days | #24 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Although I think most celebrities have to accept that their private lives end the moment they step outside of their home. There was a time when they actually could do that and expect a modicum of privacy but as more and more websites, newspapers, magazines and tv shows started paying huge amounts of money for almost any picture then every Tom, Dick and Harry with a camera is now a paparazzi. I'm sorry but a celebrity on vacation with their family does not need or want to have people following him or her and taking pictures of his or her young children. The day that the above enterprises stop paying for photos and videos of celebrities is the day that most paparazzi stop doing what they do. I guess we feed the system by looking at the pictures so we are partially to blame for the problem. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-21-12 10:12am - 4437 days | #25 | |
|
jberryl69 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,000 Registered: Nov 27, '10 Location: neverland |
Wow, Ed, took the words out of my mind. With Mitt Romney talks about giving 10% of his income to charity, and it should be pointed out that is the exact amount required (as in kicked out if he doesn't) by his church. For that, he gets a charitable deduction, and the church gets money to recruit followers. Not much charity there. So I propose that giving to a church should be treated tax wise as giving to a political party and you get no deduction. Time and money to a real charity is where it's at. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee. If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat! | |
|
||
| 09-21-12 12:45pm - 4437 days | #26 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I know that the UK loves its Royals and if they were actual political entities it would make some sense to hand them all that cash. Personally I do not know how one ends that type of thing, but the UK would be a massive superpower if it was not for the child support of the crown. Then there would be no scandal, just sneek and peek nippy shots.! No Harm no foul. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 09-21-12 05:38pm - 4437 days | #27 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I'd say that the Royals bring in a shitload of money to Britain in tourist dollars. How many people go to England just to visit the different holdings of the Royal family? Don't you think that the French kind of regret beheading their King and Queen? Wouldn't they love to also have a King or Queen to go with all the castles? You may not like the Royal family but they do attract a lot of tourist. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-22-12 04:55am - 4436 days | #28 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
They do run a massive net profit for the UK, just imagine all the Royal souvenirs bought in London every year by tourists. I really don't believe that a President would have the same draw. If we got rid of the Queen, does anyone really believe that a President is cheaper? Or more scandal free? Some of the lesser Royals have been involved in scandals but the Queen has remained unblemished for her entire reign. The other alternative would be to have no separate Head of State and have a leader who is a combined Prime Minister and President. When you think through the implications of that one it's scary. As soon as you get someone corrupt into a position of absolute power like that, who knows what law changes could happen for that person's personal benefit? We all know the history of a very famous leader of a country who used an oddly convenient massive terrorist attack as a way to scare everyone accepting powerful new laws to defend the country, reduce freedom and increase military spending. The Queen has no real legal power in the UK, BUT she has constitutional power to make and get rid of Prime Ministers. If a Prime Minister breaks the law, she can remove him/her from office, thus ensuring that they are NOT above the law. I think a separate Head of State is critical, and I think the Queen does a pretty good job of it. I don't believe a President would be better for the country. The Queen may not be an ideal solution, but give me a better alternative? Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 09-23-12 03:03pm - 4435 days | #29 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
Couldn't say this applies, but: Ringo Starr wrote it, put it on the charts and made it a hit. "It don't come easy" Lyrics: "You gotta pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues, and you know it don't come easy." BTW.... I sang that song recently at a karaoke bar. BOUGHT DOWN THE HOUSE! | |
|
||
| 10-17-12 10:27am - 4411 days | #32 | |
|
AussieBabes (0)
Active User Posts: 2 Registered: Oct 17, '12 |
I never got around to looking at them, it didn't sound like a big deal | |
|
||
| 10-17-12 11:43am - 4411 days | #33 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I don't think you missed much. Let me welcome you to the forum. We don't have too many female posters so it's always great when we see a new one. Hopefully we won't scare you and you will keep on posting. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 10-17-12 02:23pm - 4411 days | #34 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
They are mostly much ado about nothing, as we almost have to trust the authority of the magazines that printed the photos that they are indeed real. The image quality is so poor that it is pretty silly - much of the previous thread is us discussing the reasons for that. That said, in case you want to indulge your curiosity, here are all of the photos: The "topless" set that were published first: Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 [These photos are from this article on Celebslam, and are reorganized to show them in the order they most likely were published.] The "bottomless" set that were published two-weeks later: Page 1 - Page 2 [These photos are from this article on Gawker.] "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 10-17-12 05:24pm - 4411 days | #35 | |
|
Reveen (0)
Active User Posts: 96 Registered: Apr 06, '09 |
just a couple of little fried eggs is all she's got | |
|
||
| 10-18-12 09:22am - 4410 days | #36 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^And what's wrong with fried egss? I love fried eggs. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 10-18-12 04:10pm - 4410 days | #37 | |
|
Reveen (0)
Active User Posts: 96 Registered: Apr 06, '09 |
I prefer nice juicy melons meself  | |
|
||
| 10-18-12 06:17pm - 4410 days | #38 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^Nothing wrong with that. See this is great because I can have all of the fried eggs and you can have all of the juicy melons. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 1-36 of 36 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
