On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:32:21 -0400, Spermy Tonsilgloss
<spermeister@boobonicplague.cum> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:22:06 -0400, cc@cereal.net wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:04:58 -0400, Spermy Tonsilgloss
>snip!
>>>Gotta say that Christina looked really great with that baby fat in the
>>>tits area!
>>>
>>>Sadly, she was still not showing much at all at that time, which I
>>>think is her peak attractiveness. And then there was the "dancing"...
>>>oh well... gotta accept bad with the good.
>>>
>>>Spermy
>>><O=~~~~~~~
>>
>>i never understood any of the dancing criticism i mean what do ya
>>want, dancing with the stars? just put those puppies in motion, works
>>for me.
>
>Well, in my opinion the flat footed, feet planted, side to side
>rocking could be enhanced to more grinding and thrusting! She did pick
>up more of that later. The versions we got earlier were boring,
>lackluster, and repetitive... all I could do is wish it to stop. It
>made her look mindless and less than graceful. Jiggling and jumping
>should have been part of the routine as I totally agree that those
>puppies in motion would have been the thing!
>
>And ewww... "Dancing with the Stars" ? ...hope not, I'm not into
>twirly and whirly theatrics, except maybe with tassles! Oh... darn,
>come to think oif it, she could have used pasties and tassles in some
>of her early work to conceal her "modesty". More puppy motion/action.
>
>Okay let's also put her in a thong, and show way more ass to the
>camera twerking and the like, too, as I felt that one neglected
>"ass"pect was her rump.
>
>I guess she was trying to be more the "model" vs. an adult
>entertainer. AND, let's face it, did any one care about the "outfits"?
>
>BUT I was/am/will be her fan for her physical attributes and
>non-dancing talents! <wink>
>
>Just my 2 cents!
>
>Spermy
><O=~~~~~~~
Good points!
|
|