| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,700 Given: 5,061 |
Bit creepy. She's underage.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 24,968 Given: 12,774 |
She's 17. She's a fully developed woman. She's not a child. Women from our grandparent's generation and further back married at 16 and 17. What makes it creepy today is the knowledge that a typical 17 year old is a bit on the naive side. Physically they're adults but mentally they're just becoming adults.Originally Posted by Benedicta
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 2,896 Given: 852 |
Very aesthetically pleasing, but not interesting or ubermensch in any way. Would produce unremarkable sons.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 7,564 Given: 5,232 |
Between 8 and 9, very cute girl
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 2,526 Given: 257 |
She seems biologically of age.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 998 Given: 806 |
In my opinion she's very good looking (let's say 8), but she looks just like another American slim, blonde girl.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 4,199 Given: 1,401 |
She is too skinny and her face is too much Alpinoid influenced. 2/10, would not bang.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 28,799 Given: 25,904 |
Could be. Id give her a 9, but if she was curvier, shed be a 10 IMO. But very gorgeous girl.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 23,148 Given: 18,117 |
There are no 10/10's...we are humans afterall
That said, she is a strong 8...and could be a 9 with more fatty tissue in the bosom and gluteus maximus locales.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 24,968 Given: 12,774 |
Maybe a 9.9?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
United States
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks