Reply With Quote
Why do you like muscley women mateMost those above are too soft.
i used to think she was natural but now i'm not so sure.
either way there are obviously exceptions to every rule. and she is pretty fine tbh.
Why do you like muscley women mateMost those above are too soft.
Someone has a gif of Kate Upton in their signature, she's pretty good
While she's in shape she's not a muscle chick.
I can understand being in shape and toned but that girl you posted before had too well defined muscles
Both pictures were of the same girl, Playboy playmate Torrie Wilson.
Meh
I don't have a type.
Pretty face is a must. Can't be fat/obese/disproportionate, but I don't mind a girl with some curves
Otherwise, it's all pink on the inside
I'm fairly convinced that you're into dudes at this point.
I just cant understand this
She thick as dawg
Well, you probably like this:
I would so do many dirty things to her............ *sigh*
i still cant decide whether im an ass man or a s man....i love them both so much
legs are a must though, and i find bad cellulite repulsive
honestly if i had to choose between face and body...id go body. the face only does so much.
are you 10 yrs old, you little got? I swear between this thread and the re ed asses threads you start weekly I would guess you're just now discovering the internet. I could've sworn you were a college student too
Well at least they are of legal age.
I see you're still basing your morals on what our lawmakers say while disregarding science
"It doesn't matter what you say, IT'S STILL ILLEGAL!!!!!"
Why are you so defensive about it, I'm just saying..
You should really fix that picture. Being compressed horizontally to give her a bigger ass makes the rest of her look chunky.
Not really.
That's how she looks regardless of shrinkage.
Finely toned .
Well, my sense of proportion must be different. The one in your sig is compressed to 76% horizontally to the larger one. It makes a huge difference in her beauty.Not really.
That's how she looks regardless of shrinkage.
Finely toned .
In your sig, 640x355, 1.75:1 proportion.
larger one cropped to same picture elements 877x384. 2.28:1 proportion.
1.75 is only 76% of 2.28.
WC is serial killer weird
All that is being loss on the sig is quality.
If you can maintain the quality while cropping and editing all the letters and seagull out be my guest. I'll appreciate that.
Yes.
I'm sorry, but to me, the shortening on the horizontal axis destroyed her beauty. Need to keep things in proportion.
Wild Cobra is correct that the aspect ratio is different and that the edited image is compressed horizontally.
I'm guessing he's incorrect in thinking anyone gives a , however. And, like the special eyes/pixel resolution argument, going to the trouble of a mathematical breakdown is taking it way too seriously and inviting ridicule.
Here they are, the smaller one at 71% to approximately match the width of yours:
We've all known that dynamite looking chick without a brain in her head. This girl always looked so ...interesting. The look on her face tells us how exciting she'd be.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
