I was quite disappointed, it was actually nasty.
2007-01-30 05:19:56 · 9 answers · asked by biggimpin 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
It was quite unpleasant and very shocking. But it was a good in a way I guess because those were all unretouched photos and people can see her as she really is. She's just a regular gal like everyone else.
Her privates don't have magical powers or anything. LOL
2007-01-30 05:41:40 · answer #1 · answered by JT 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah nasty.
2007-01-30 05:51:05 · answer #2 · answered by Doug R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
on the grounds that she would not placed on them they could probable be clean yet all of us understand, if she grew to become into merchandising them that creepy guy female looking ingredient off you tube ("bypass away BRITNEY on my own" crap) could purchase them. Why ask the question besides?
2016-11-23 14:16:29 · answer #3 · answered by vernell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought that I was glad I was not the person who had to sit where she had last sat without any underwear on. Ugh.
2007-01-30 09:26:15 · answer #4 · answered by Nefertiti 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was gross. Even her C-section scar was visible. There is one good thing that came from the photo though - at least we know that she shaves her pubes. I would have thought it to be overgrown with hair.
2007-01-30 05:29:46 · answer #5 · answered by RACQUEL 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It looked like spoiled oscar mayer bologna.
2007-01-30 05:43:41 · answer #6 · answered by TheYellowRose 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought she was the Queen of Skanks.
2007-01-30 05:28:40 · answer #7 · answered by Mike T 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't see it...nor do I want to. She's nothing but a slutty little boob.
2007-01-30 05:59:34 · answer #8 · answered by Jane 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ew skank.. shes disgusting
2007-01-30 05:39:30 · answer #9 · answered by csi_sanders_lover8 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋