Relikk wrote: » Nope.
BattleCorp wrote: » More Vogue. For all those giving out about her personality, are you seriously saying that you wouldn't like a go.
quad_red wrote: » Definitive research on Ms Hoffs above Excellent research quad-red. Phd material.
quad_red wrote: » Definitive research on Ms Hoffs above
everlast75 wrote: » Gal Gadot, you heathen :P
Thich Nhat Hanh wrote: » Who dat ^^^
Thich Nhat Hanh wrote: » Are you into women usually? Slim tall and leggy is perfect for me
Bambi985 wrote: » Yeah nothing to do with her pop music (I am prone to a bit of cheesy T-Swizzle myself ), I just don't find her remotely sexy at all. Despite having all the features of an attractive person, she just seems gangly and childish and awkward and a bit stiff to me.
conorhal wrote: » Yeah, but after you get bored with what a hollow lifeless F!£$"$% she probably is, would it be worth having to listen to some passive agressive, overproduced crap pop song wittering about what a douche you are, that will follow you through every club with a resident DJ that has terrible taste in music, for like, months?
Thich Nhat Hanh wrote: » I would plough her into next week. That sleek sexy figure, drool...
Bambi985 wrote: » Is Taylor Swift attractive? To me she's like that swotty annoying precocious teacher's pet at school that would squeal on you for not having your homework done, about as sexy as cancer. But what do I know hey
sbsquarepants wrote: » Practically guaranteed. But they were likely toddlers. No boiiiiiing I hope!
BattleCorp wrote: » I wonder would the two sisters ever take a bath together. Boiiiiiiiiiiiiiing
sbsquarepants wrote: » Zooey. She's hot, but I also prefer Emily