The Gooper shows her pooper

“Close-up of Gwyneth Paltrow’s mesmerizing ass in her racy photoshoot.”


image host

6 thoughts on “The Gooper shows her pooper

  1. I’d point out the garment is a red version of what we normally call panty-hose. Not so much “red panties.” They’re often sheer to the point of being see-thru. In your sample, we can clearly see her tan line. The evident lack of panties puts the frontal view that we also get a pic of in some perspective. We see the continuation of the tan line there, too, in the front. In short, that’d be what we could call a shaved-bare crotch pic.

        1. a) 85% is math abuse. b) You’re wrong.

          I mean, OK, so yeah, airbrushing is routine. But “shopped in”? As in, the panties are faked? WTF?

      1. Conceded. I see the fabric folds in it. The ass cheeks are bare, so it’s functionally a G-string. The shapes of the edges & that they’re sharp aren’t tan-line like. How opaque they are still isn’t entirely clear to me, but no doubt there’s some kind of fabric there that I can’t presuppose is especially see-thru.

        I have a sense of humor, but it’s heavily tilted toward misdirection. When I’m serious, I hate ad hominem rhetoric. So I don’t like observational humor based on mischaracterizing people I don’t know. I’m careful about those I do know, consciously limit myself to things I clearly do know about them, & have enough context to have developed perspective. When I don’t find a woman good-looking, what do I gain by demeaning her? When I do find her good-looking, I’ll be fishing for things to compliment her on, not to make fun of. I don’t joke about nudity or fashion.

        I equate DrunkenStepFather to The Three Stooges. There, we differ violently. Yes, it could come to blows if we ever meet.

        1. Sorry, failed to notice “Spooky”. I stand by what I said, but it was outside of its relevant context.

Comments are closed.