Danica won't strip. Disappointed or not?

[Chuck A]

Originally Posted by DAB

she'd prolly look like brooke shields at 12.

Good one
very funny, indeed

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

But she isn't sexually hawt

You're clearly insane or under the influence. Maybe both.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I like the small boobage, I'm not a fan of the big jugs.

I don't mind the bigger ones - if they're proportional to the girl.

For me, large bimbo jugs are a turn-off.

[C5Nate]

Originally Posted by Mike Mercury

Danica is a great example of "it takes more than..."

She is slender, and with long hair. But it takes more than just that alone to be considered hawt.

Her body type will always stand out & get noticed - say - in a Walmart... as one of th ebetter looking girls there.

But she isn't sexually hawt There would be no need to see her nude.

Just never cared for her and I would pass on the poke also.

OK, yeah she takes good care of herself but I wouldn't poke Jane Fonda in her prime also. Same reason, just never cared for her.

[Fasglas]

Originally Posted by ConstantChange

You guys are so full of shit. I'd be all over that and so would you.

What is this? Blanket generalizations? Dr. Phil? Dr. RUTH?

You don't know me, or anything about me.

I have no interest in DP, in any fashion, at any time. Never have, never will.

Clear enough?

[NeedSpeed]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

What is this? Blanket generalizations? Dr. Phil? Dr. RUTH?

You don't know me, or anything about me.

I have no interest in DP, in any fashion, at any time. Never have, never will.

Clear enough?

Maybe her brother then?

[OldSarge]

Maybe from the back, not wanting to waste any time, over her car.

[Fasglas]

Originally Posted by NeedSpeed

Maybe her brother then?

Why does THIS response come as no surprise?

[Poog]

I tired of all things Danica long ago.

[NeedSpeed]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

Why does THIS response come as no surprise?

Well duh, forum By Laws, Section VII, Article V states clearly that if a forum poster disagrees with another poster over the sexual attractiveness of a said female, they are then, by default, gay.

No one reads the rules anymore

[C5Nate]

Originally Posted by NeedSpeed

Well duh, forum By Laws, Section VII, Article V states clearly that if a forum poster disagrees with another poster over the sexual attractiveness of a said female, they are then, by default, gay.

No one reads the rules anymore

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by NeedSpeed

Well duh, forum By Laws, Section VII, Article V states clearly that if a forum poster disagrees with another poster over the sexual attractiveness of a said female, they are then, by default, gay.

No one reads the rules anymore

[Aerovette]

1. Given the opportunity to use it, do you think motor oil would be her lube of choice?
2. As she approaches 14 minutes and 59 seconds of fame, her decision will probably change (Playboy, cough).

[xXBUDXx]

Originally Posted by ConstantChange

You guys are so full of shit. I'd be all over that and so would you.

I'd do you to get in the drawing for a chance at crawling through 2 miles of broken glass to enter the 50 competitor battle royal to touch her butt.

[8Up]

Originally Posted by ConstantChange

You guys are so full of shit. I'd be all over that and so would you.

Hadn't really thought about it until now so, no, no I wouldn't.

[Fasglas]

Originally Posted by NeedSpeed

Well duh, forum By Laws, Section VII, Article V states clearly that if a forum poster disagrees with another poster over the sexual attractiveness of a said female, they are then, by default, gay.

No one reads the rules anymore

That's the best you've got?

Seems you missed subsection 1, parts a, b & c. A little remedial study is in order.

Quoting but a section which appears to further an agenda is not only disingenuous, it clearly illuminates lack of knowledge.

BTW - Wasn't it YOUR post, #13, which indicated initiaial disagreement?
Hmmmm...

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by 454_71Stingray

Hadn't really thought about it until now so, no, no I wouldn't.

Put your work in a safe condition and seek psychiatric help. ASAP.

[NeedSpeed]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

That's the best you've got?

Seems you missed subsection 1, parts a, b & c. A little remedial study is in order.

Quoting but a section which appears to further an agenda is not only disingenuous, it clearly illuminates lack of knowledge.

BTW - Wasn't it YOUR post, #13, which indicated initiaial disagreement?
Hmmmm...

#13 wasn't me. I merely gave you a suggestion that may further your apparent position. If by disagree you mean I went against the gay train started by DAB in post #2, followed by fellow homo's Ol'Timer, 454, Buckweat, C5 Nate, Poog, and even our resident chick poster Mike ( I had higher expectations mike), then yes, you are correct in that I was part of initial disagreement by saying I'd do her.

I apologize to all our closet homo's here on the forum.







This was all in jest of course.

[Sneaks]

Originally Posted by NeedSpeed

Well duh, forum By Laws, Section VII, Article V states clearly that if a forum poster disagrees with another poster over the sexual attractiveness of a said female, they are then, by default, gay.

No one reads the rules anymore

[ApexOversteer]

For the record, She's hot-ish but it hurts my brain when she speaks. Still, I'd grudge f*ck her, twice.