What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Who's hottest? (1 Viewer)

Who's hottest?

  • 1

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • 2

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Total voters
    12
Two is really pretty but one looks like she'd be much more fun. I'm all about the F in fun. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I choose girl one because she looks like she has the most to play with.

They are all too young for me. Don't get me wrong, they can get it. But these are just little girls man. Whats up with that? And it's not like one of them is over a 7 or possible 8. Who knows when they actually grow up.

 
5 is the clear cut winner.

You may not be able to see much of her arms, chest, legs, feet, hands, back or rear BUT in my prolific imagination she has it all.

OK i may still be drunk!!

 
Are all of these chicks legal?
Doubtful. Why does it matter?
Cause the feds like arresting people associated with posting suggestive pics of underage girls lately. :shrug:
It was a picture taken in a public place, obviously with their consent.Good luck making THAT case stick.
Consent of underage is invalid. Privacy issues have nothing to do with it anyway. Doesn't matter if it was taken in a public place or private place if its content is illegal.
 
Are all of these chicks legal? 
Doubtful. Why does it matter?
Cause the feds like arresting people associated with posting suggestive pics of underage girls lately. :shrug:
It was a picture taken in a public place, obviously with their consent.Good luck making THAT case stick.
Consent of underage is invalid. Privacy issues have nothing to do with it anyway. Doesn't matter if it was taken in a public place or private place if its content is illegal.
:lmao: Link to where it's illegal to take, possess or distribute a picture of ANYONE in their swimsuit?
 
Are all of these chicks legal?
Doubtful. Why does it matter?
Cause the feds like arresting people associated with posting suggestive pics of underage girls lately. :shrug:
It was a picture taken in a public place, obviously with their consent.Good luck making THAT case stick.
Consent of underage is invalid. Privacy issues have nothing to do with it anyway. Doesn't matter if it was taken in a public place or private place if its content is illegal.
:lmao: Link to where it's illegal to take, possess or distribute a picture of ANYONE in their swimsuit?
See bolded part of my response. Was responding to his argument that public place makes the picture legal. Better argument is obviously that there is nothing illegal about taking pictures of clothed women.
 
Are all of these chicks legal? 
Doubtful. Why does it matter?
Cause the feds like arresting people associated with posting suggestive pics of underage girls lately. :shrug:
It was a picture taken in a public place, obviously with their consent.Good luck making THAT case stick.
Consent of underage is invalid. Privacy issues have nothing to do with it anyway. Doesn't matter if it was taken in a public place or private place if its content is illegal.
:lmao: Link to where it's illegal to take, possess or distribute a picture of ANYONE in their swimsuit?
See bolded part of my response. Was responding to his argument that public place makes the picture legal. Better argument is obviously that there is nothing illegal about taking pictures of clothed women.
I think his point was that because the activity was occurring in a public place (in this case, a hotel swimming pool with lots of people around) it was presumambly legal.
 
Are all of these chicks legal?
Doubtful. Why does it matter?
Cause the feds like arresting people associated with posting suggestive pics of underage girls lately. :shrug:
It was a picture taken in a public place, obviously with their consent.Good luck making THAT case stick.
Consent of underage is invalid. Privacy issues have nothing to do with it anyway. Doesn't matter if it was taken in a public place or private place if its content is illegal.
:lmao: Link to where it's illegal to take, possess or distribute a picture of ANYONE in their swimsuit?
See bolded part of my response. Was responding to his argument that public place makes the picture legal. Better argument is obviously that there is nothing illegal about taking pictures of clothed women.
I think his point was that because the activity was occurring in a public place (in this case, a hotel swimming pool with lots of people around) it was presumambly legal.
I still just think it goes to content. If the picture also showed R. Kelly urinating on them, then the fact it was taken by a swimming pool (with a lot of people around) would not be relevant.ETA: At least as far as distribution of the picture is concerned. Obviously, R. Kelly would have public indecency charges, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two is really pretty but one looks like she'd be much more fun. I'm all about the F in fun. :thumbup:
I agree with DD. She does look like she would be fun. The hard right nipple and ample chest puts her over the top."1"

 
The whole "I vote for ANY blond regardless of her figure and no matter how plain she looks" shtick is getting tired :thumbdown:

Someone please explain to me 2 features that put #2 over #1 :popcorn:

Just to save time, I'll knock some off ...

hips

hair

face

eyes

chest

I guess that still leaves teeth, personality, hands, legs and ears :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1 [ 22 ] [21.57%]

2 [ 25 ] [24.51%]

3 [ 1 ] [0.98%]

4 [ 10 ] [9.80%]

5 [ 1 ] [0.98%]

6 [ 4 ] [3.92%]

7 [ 39 ] [38.24%]

Total Votes: 102
I bet if this poll was about who was likely the easiest, three would be leading the way.
 
The whole "I vote for ANY blond regardless of her figure and no matter how plain she looks" shtick is getting tired :thumbdown:

Someone please explain to me 2 features that put #2 over #1 :popcorn:

Just to save time, I'll knock some off ...

hips

hair

face

eyes

chest

I guess that still leaves teeth, personality, hands, legs and ears :shrug:
i voted #2 and i prefer brunettes. :shrug:
 
the one far right behind the volleyball net huge #### (edit: teets)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole "I vote for ANY blond regardless of her figure and no matter how plain she looks" shtick is getting tired :thumbdown:

Someone please explain to me 2 features that put #2 over #1 :popcorn:

Just to save time, I'll knock some off ...

hips

hair

face

eyes

chest

I guess that still leaves teeth, personality, hands, legs and ears :shrug:
:no:
 
The whole "I vote for ANY blond regardless of her figure and no matter how plain she looks" shtick is getting tired :thumbdown:

Someone please explain to me 2 features that put #2 over #1 :popcorn:

Just to save time, I'll knock some off ...

hips

hair

face

eyes

chest

I guess that still leaves teeth, personality, hands, legs and ears :shrug:
Normally I'm anti blonde. I think the fact that #2 was standing next to #3 made her look better at first glance. Id like to change to #1, kthx.
 
The whole "I vote for ANY blond regardless of her figure and no matter how plain she looks" shtick is getting tired :thumbdown:

Someone please explain to me 2 features that put #2 over #1 :popcorn:

Just to save time, I'll knock some off ...

hips

hair

face

eyes

chest

I guess that still leaves teeth, personality, hands, legs and ears :shrug:
I think #1 has an unattractive face.
 
Are all of these chicks legal?
Doubtful. Why does it matter?
Cause the feds like arresting people associated with posting suggestive pics of underage girls lately. :shrug:
It was a picture taken in a public place, obviously with their consent.Good luck making THAT case stick.
Consent of underage is invalid. Privacy issues have nothing to do with it anyway. Doesn't matter if it was taken in a public place or private place if its content is illegal.
:lmao: Link to where it's illegal to take, possess or distribute a picture of ANYONE in their swimsuit?
See bolded part of my response. Was responding to his argument that public place makes the picture legal. Better argument is obviously that there is nothing illegal about taking pictures of clothed women.
I think his point was that because the activity was occurring in a public place (in this case, a hotel swimming pool with lots of people around) it was presumambly legal.
I still just think it goes to content. If the picture also showed R. Kelly urinating on them, then the fact it was taken by a swimming pool (with a lot of people around) would not be relevant.ETA: At least as far as distribution of the picture is concerned. Obviously, R. Kelly would have public indecency charges, etc.
I didn't think it was necessary to add the disclaimer about the content.We could all see for ourselves that they are in bathing suits. :shrug:

 
Are all of these chicks legal? 
Doubtful. Why does it matter?
Cause the feds like arresting people associated with posting suggestive pics of underage girls lately. :shrug:
It's not "suggestive". They are in bathing suits and are not posing in a provocative manner.I guess stores/companies better stop including photos of young girls in swimsuits in their fliers and catalogues then.

 
Isn't that a little cottage cheese you can see on #1's left leg? 2, 4, and 7 have the nicest legs, but for overall package I have to go with 2, and I'm normally very partial to brunettes.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top