[Palomine]

 It certainly does look like her. I added this thread to her entry on the big IDQ thread in the ID request forum. Thanks for the EXCELLENT eagle eye!  

PS: anyone have an opinion (only one per customer tho! ) re: the appearance of her areolas in the photo attached above? Though I'd always thought of her as a natural, they sure do have a bit of that 'sewn-on' look to them in that photo, so p'haps she's not as natural as I thought... and YES, it makes NO difference (nat vs imp) I'm just curious.

Desperately cute gal regardless of course, no doubt about THAT.  

[vidiot]

Quote:
Palomine said:
 PS: anyone have an opinion (only one per customer tho! ) re: the appearance of her areolas in the photo attached above? Though I'd always thought of her as a natural, they sure do have a bit of that 'sewn-on' look to them in that photo, so p'haps she's not as natural as I thought... and YES, it makes NO difference (nat vs imp) I'm just curious.  

I think she's been reduced.  Her breasts look smaller, and the "sewn on" look of the areolas is probably from when they moved them up and reattached them during the surgery.

[jjsmith]

Dude, that website is fucking creepy.

[PET]

Quote:
jjsmith said:
Dude, that website is fucking creepy.

agreed I might be creepy and kinky, but this was too much for my taste....

[SwitcherX]

Quote:
Palomine said:
 It certainly does look like her. I added this thread to her entry on the big IDQ thread in the ID request forum. Thanks for the EXCELLENT eagle eye!  

PS: anyone have an opinion (only one per customer tho! ) re: the appearance of her areolas in the photo attached above? Though I'd always thought of her as a natural, they sure do have a bit of that 'sewn-on' look to them in that photo, so p'haps she's not as natural as I thought... and YES, it makes NO difference (nat vs imp) I'm just curious.

Desperately cute gal regardless of course, no doubt about THAT.    

It looksl ike her but I don't think it is.  And I think she got implants.  Blake Mitchell has the same looking "sew-on" scars.

[BarnacleBill]

 

Quote:
 I think she's been reduced. Her breasts look smaller, and the "sewn on" look of the areolas is probably from when they moved them up and reattached them during the surgery.
 

AGREE 100%

She was much bigger before, and the definite "sewn on" look.

Reduction.  Which begs the question, how much MORE money could that girl have made in amateur softcore porn if she would've kept her original, bigger, sexier, God-given boobs?

ANSWER:  A HELL OF A LOT MORE!!!!!!!

[zeo]

I don't think it's her.
1) aureoles are smaller and darker.
2) breasts are smaller and have a different shape to them.
3) face looks similar but still different.

Overall, very similar looking, but I just don't think it's the same woman. I'm not following that link the whole concept is too disturbing.

[ChrisR1]

I hate to shit on everyone's parade, but I can pretty much confirm it's her; in the attached comparison pics, look at the mole pattern from her left collar bone down to her cleavage - a perfect match.
And the worst part is, as if the reduction of that perfect pair weren't bad enough, she went to a hack surgeon that didn't even get both of her nips the same size

[pedonbio]

Quote:
jjsmith said:
Dude, that website is fucking creepy.

You say that like it's a ba-a-a-ad thing...

[Cel]

It's her, and she got a reduction.

What a fucking waste. I would've rather it have stayed a mystery.  

[ChrisR1]

Quote:
Cel said:What a fucking waste. I would've rather it have stayed a mystery.  

I couldn't agree more, on both counts.

[DJPFC]

Wow... the mystery is finally solved!  It is absolutely her.  And she definitely got a reduction.  What an terrible shame.  They were so great before.  Now they are all scarred and weird looking.

Great eye to figure out that it's her, though.

[vidiot]

Quote:
Reduction.  Which begs the question, how much MORE money could that girl have made in amateur softcore porn if she would've kept her original, bigger, sexier, God-given boobs?

ANSWER:  A HELL OF A LOT MORE!!!!!!!

Exactly.  If she was going to pose topless or nude anyway, why not keep them big and milk them for as much money as possible, then retire and get them reduced.  But no, she flashes them for free while they're big, then cuts down them down when she's trying to make money from them?  

[Hugeboobfan]

Quote:
vidiot said:

Quote:
Reduction.  Which begs the question, how much MORE money could that girl have made in amateur softcore porn if she would've kept her original, bigger, sexier, God-given boobs?

ANSWER:  A HELL OF A LOT MORE!!!!!!!

Exactly.  If she was going to pose topless or nude anyway, why not keep them big and milk them for as much money as possible, then retire and get them reduced.  But no, she flashes them for free while they're big, then cuts down them down when she's trying to make money from them?  

I'm nearly speechless.  God, what a terrible, terrible waste.  I agree with both of the above points, but I can only assume that the horror (the horror!) progressed in the following order:

1. Get tons of attention from guys all over the place.  Become a minor internet sensation.

2. Have boobs reduced for some silly reason (peer pressure, back pain, etc.).

3. Run out of money in early/mid 20s, decide to work for some adult web-modeling because the real world sucks.

4. Surprisingly, there's not a lot of interest.  Suddenly men aren't slobbering all over her like they used to (see #2).

5. Work for **39** site because she's still cute and big boobs aren't required.

Sad.  So sad.

[vidiot]

Quote:
2. Have boobs reduced for some silly reason (peer pressure, back pain, etc.).

As much as we are disappointed in what she did (and perhaps she herself is even more disappointed), I wouldn't call reduction for back pain silly ... provided that the back pain is (1) real, (2) not caused by something else like a bad mattress or bad posture and (3) not the result of a poorly fitted bra.