[quote]pushharder wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Push, its pretty obvious in this picture her boobes are wayyy below her navel.
Actually, if you think about it…having a woman’s boobs waaay below her navel would allow you to…kill two birds with one stone…so to speak.[/quote]
If I understand correctly, I like the way you think.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I’m sorry, but this whole spread your legs thing for ratings worked 20 years ago when she was worth looking at, but now it’s just sad and pathetic. Someone needs to tell her the truth that she just is not hot anymore.
So do you like women or men? I am sure that you are not pulling any woman that’s hotter.
You mean 50yr old women who are hotter? There are 300,000 hotter younger women.
Sorry Bro, but 50yrs old women just don’t do it for me. I like my babes boobs to be above the naval. Maybe you are into saggy parts, but not me.
[/quote]
I mean women you’ve slept with. You make a valid point with the boobs. But some women just have gravity-defying boobs. And there’s surgery too. Many women, young and old, have had bood jobs. The whole package of Stone is pretty nice. Of course I would have to see her naked and in person to judge better. Feel her too. But your standards seem unrealistic. I’ve been with some pretty hot chicks and I can still appreciate Sharon Stone for her age and to a lesser degree any age. I wonder what goddesses you’ve slept with.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yeah, you go ahead and convince me that this recent photo of Sharon Stone proves her boobs are sagging below her navel. Go ahead and give it your best shot.
[/quote]
Damn straight. Pretty perky and with no support. Nicer than the boobs of many 20 yr olds. Unless they’re drawn on and completely repositioned via Photoshop. Which I highly doubt. Maybe Lorisco just can’t see and is generalizing to a population of 50 yr olds while ignorant what’s actually in front of his eyes.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So somebody’s grandma bends over and you want to look at her saggy ass?
You need help my friend![/quote]
You cut Sharon Stone’s head off and do a killer job of photoshopping the head of a hot 25-yr old onto it. And 999 guys out of a 1000 would say that’s a hot twenty-something with a killer body.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I’m sorry, but this whole spread your legs thing for ratings worked 20 years ago when she was worth looking at, but now it’s just sad and pathetic. Someone needs to tell her the truth that she just is not hot anymore.
So do you like women or men? I am sure that you are not pulling any woman that’s hotter.
You mean 50yr old women who are hotter? There are 300,000 hotter younger women.
Sorry Bro, but 50yrs old women just don’t do it for me. I like my babes boobs to be above the naval. Maybe you are into saggy parts, but not me.
I mean women you’ve slept with. You make a valid point with the boobs. But some women just have gravity-defying boobs. And there’s surgery too. Many women, young and old, have had bood jobs. The whole package of Stone is pretty nice. Of course I would have to see her naked and in person to judge better. Feel her too. But your standards seem unrealistic. I’ve been with some pretty hot chicks and I can still appreciate Sharon Stone for her age and to a lesser degree any age. I wonder what goddesses you’ve slept with.[/quote]
Well, you can’t really tell anything from photos or film as the makeup and lighting etc can make a woman look hot or not. So it would be hard to judge unless you saw her close up for yourself.
I think she looks great for being that old. But I guess my standard is based on how she used to look. She was totally hot in the first Basic Instinct and she is just not able to pull that off 20 years later.
As for the woman I’ve slept with, they had better bodies and much younger.
[quote]MrChill wrote:
Call me fucked up, but I think she looks better now than before. At least in her most recent photoshoots.[/quote]
That’s because of advances in photoshop.
You think I kid. I assure you, I do not.
I liked King Solomans’ Mines and the sequal. It had its moments. I thought she was stunningly pretty (and natural) back then - didn’t she win some beauty pageant?
But still, at this age Sharon still looks OK to me.
I am sure she looks great for her age even up close, but her pictures along with every other celebrity and models pictures are heavily photoshopped.
Only the papparazis pictures are realistic and even then they seem to find either the best or worst of the bunch depending on what image they are trying to convey.
Those pics are airbushed and her tits are fake.
Close up:http://images.popsugar.com/uploads11/sharon-stone-3.22-3.jpg
Go watch a 5-8 year old movie called “The Muse”. There is a scene where she gets naked and into bed. The back of her legs have more cottage cheese on them then a dairy buffet.
[quote]petrainer wrote:
Those pics are airbushed and her tits are fake.
Close up:http://images.popsugar.com/uploads11/sharon-stone-3.22-3.jpg
Go watch a 5-8 year old movie called “The Muse”. There is a scene where she gets naked and into bed. The back of her legs have more cottage cheese on them then a dairy buffet.[/quote]
There is a lot of protein in cottage cheese. I usually have some before bed.
[quote]eqpfunk wrote:
Or is Sharon Stone looking incredibly bangable in this??
She’s like almost 50 right?[/quote]
Ya, she looks really good in the movie trailer!
Some women just get hotter as time goes on, and some women get a lot of surgery done and have access to professional hollywood makeup crews and only have themselves shot under favorable lighting and angles!
