Could be construed as slightly NSFW
Now with traffic cone on head.
From the Office Art challenge. See all 334 entries (closed)
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:40, archived)
I got her off this page (NSFW): hosted.met-art.com/Full_met-art_GES_4_439/?pa=947812
It says down the bottom she's legal..
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:51, archived)
Yeah, I did click "strech" for setting her as a bg, that might explain the thinness.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:53, archived)
but this wanker is going to be ignored.
That picture makes me shudder.
I don't give a shit if the site "claims" she is legal. She looks 13.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:55, archived)
considering they've explained and such
I still think the picture's nsfw, so why not hide the post instead?
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:57, archived)
the icon-censoring makes it look worse than it is
it's fairly standard (if skinny) adult nekkidness on the original picture
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 1:00, archived)
the internet is FOR porn
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:43, archived)
"If they took all the porn sites off the internet there will only be one site left, and it would be called: Bring Back the Porn."
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:44, archived)
they should change the internet to the pornograpy
man: hey, i can get train tickets off the pornography!
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:56, archived)
every b3tan replies the second there is a nekkid lady on the scene hehehe ,
CURTAINS MATCH THE CARPET?
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:46, archived)
That poor lady is either far too thin or you've got a 16:9 ratio image on a 4:3 screen.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:46, archived)
I saw * f o o f * 's post above and didn't notice it was a different image.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 0:48, archived)
