Upload
Login or register
x

Olivia Hussey

(Enlarge)
Olivia Hussey. Basic google search results will allow you to find the scene. Olivia Hussey.. There was an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet wherein the actress, 15

Basic google search results will allow you to find the scene.

Olivia Hussey.

There was an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet
wherein the actress, 15 year old Juliet, appeared
nude in the movie. She was then banned from the
premiere of the movie because she was underage
and the movie had nudity, though it was she who
appeared nude.
...
+846
Views: 29101
Favorited: 70
Submitted: 12/19/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to Sewallman

Comments(140):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
12>
[ 140 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
128 comments displayed.
Reply
+146
#37 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
GIF
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**
look at this predator
0
#63 to #37 - secondfunction has deleted their comment [-]
0
#80 to #37 - pewdiepieisbestpie has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
+1
User avatar #101 to #37 - corsairjoshua (12/20/2015) [-]
Yeah he's a predator all right.

And not the good kind.
Reply
+2
User avatar #123 to #101 - steamjester (12/20/2015) [-]
PURI PURI PRISONER! He's locked up because he can't stop himself from sexually attacking beautiful men because he's gay. Best...uh...back story as of yet.
Reply
+13
User avatar #53 to #37 - mikepetru (12/20/2015) [-]
ANGERU STYRE!!!!!!!
Reply
+21
User avatar #45 to #37 - nanako ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
that is an amazing roll
Reply
+243
User avatar #4 - mudkipfucker ONLINE (12/19/2015) [-]
shes also not allowed to look down in the shower
Reply
+302
#1 - randomuploads (12/19/2015) [-]
Damn that's a very respectable rack for a 17 year old.
Reply
+8
User avatar #16 to #1 - MrsMcDowell (12/19/2015) [-]
I understood that reference.
Reply
+51
#20 to #16 - randomuploads (12/19/2015) [-]
Honestly, I thought 15 was suspiciously young so I subtracted her birthyear from the year the movie was released, which gave 17.
Reply
+42
User avatar #49 to #20 - morakh (12/20/2015) [-]
Release date != Date of filming...
Reply
+37
User avatar #5 to #1 - ZeGerman (12/19/2015) [-]
15 dude, 15
Reply
+279
#7 to #5 - anon (12/19/2015) [-]
5/7 what's the difference
Reply
+40
User avatar #76 to #7 - twentyseconds (12/20/2015) [-]
no need to hire an accountant, the answer is
5/7=0.7142857142857143
Reply
+101
User avatar #8 to #7 - ZeGerman (12/19/2015) [-]
2
-3
#14 to #13 - ZeGerman has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
+2
#130 to #8 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
it's a meymay you deep
Reply
+17
User avatar #2 - hirollin (12/19/2015) [-]
Gonna need a source. That sounds incredibly not true.
Reply
+35
User avatar #24 to #2 - stinkyhat (12/19/2015) [-]
tinyurl.com/o6n8kyj

Call me a rocket scientist.
Reply
+63
User avatar #25 to #24 - hirollin (12/19/2015) [-]
a rocket scientist.
Reply
+18
#26 to #25 - stinkyhat (12/19/2015) [-]
Excellent.
Reply
+36
User avatar #3 to #2 - stadic ONLINE (12/19/2015) [-]
it's true

my teacher showed this to us in like 9th grade and had to censor the nipples with paper in from of the projectors

she did miss one or two but that is irrelevant
Reply
+54
#23 to #3 - anon (12/19/2015) [-]
How many nipples did she have?
Reply
+48
#30 to #23 - vladi (12/19/2015) [-]
A few.
Reply
0
#115 to #30 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
3 tits/Poul
Reply
+5
User avatar #52 to #3 - yunoknow (12/20/2015) [-]
whoa, ours did the same but we already learned that our teacher was gonna cockblock us from the class before us. so some genius hid the board she was using and we caught a moment of glory.
Reply
+4
User avatar #83 to #3 - alarubra (12/20/2015) [-]
See, when we watched it in my school, you had to get a consent form signed or they made you sit in the hallway during that scene.
Reply
+3
#104 to #3 - aerosol (12/20/2015) [-]
Wait, my class watched the same movie and nobody censored it at all.
Reply
-4
#75 to #3 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
Watch the damn scene, her tits are already covered and nothing but romeo's ass is shown.
Reply
+15
#81 to #75 - stadic ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
there were nipples mate, seeing tits when your in 9th grade isn't simply forgotten, even more so when you see them in class
Reply
+43
User avatar #10 - madsolar (12/19/2015) [-]
if she was under 18 how was it legal for her to be filmed while nude? Wouldnt it be cp?
Reply
-7
#74 to #10 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
Watch the damn scene, her tits are already covered and nothing but romeo's ass is shown.
Reply
+5
User avatar #82 to #10 - alarubra (12/20/2015) [-]
The laws restricting minors being nude in (non-pornographic) films are actually relatively new and were a reaction to a movie about a child prostitute made in the 70s. This movie was made in the 60s. There are still places in Europe that don't have these laws.
Reply
+10
User avatar #11 to #10 - kikkelikeiju ONLINE (12/19/2015) [-]
Nudity =/= Pornography.
Reply
+36
User avatar #12 to #11 - madsolar (12/19/2015) [-]
So youre telling me its perfectly okay to have a nude photos of girls under 18 so long as i dont refer to it as porn?
Reply
+18
User avatar #36 to #12 - comexx ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
Only if they're artistic.
Reply
+15
User avatar #57 to #36 - manstuff (12/20/2015) [-]
A E S T H E T I C
Reply
+9
#29 to #12 - anon (12/19/2015) [-]
Dude, not going to say google it, but google openly has pics. They are just not considered porn..
Reply
+7
User avatar #21 to #12 - kikkelikeiju ONLINE (12/19/2015) [-]
The line´s a bit blurry, but just because someone under 18 (or the respective age of each country/state) is nude in a picture doesn´t make it CP. I think the most common definition of CP is something like "An underage person posing in a sexual or sexually suggestive way and/or act".
Otherwise a family photo of a kid naked in swimming pool could be considered CP.
Reply
+3
User avatar #108 to #12 - mrsixinch (12/20/2015) [-]
>moves files to "not porn" folder
>safe now
Reply
+2
User avatar #19 to #12 - dakkenly (12/19/2015) [-]
Watch American Beauty, they had to bring in some dudes that carefully checked to see if it was exploitation or not. Yes Thora Birch was 16 in that movie
Reply
+3
User avatar #18 to #12 - Sewallman [OP](12/19/2015) [-]
Look up pictures of nudist families.
Reply
+1
#15 to #12 - anon (12/19/2015) [-]
it's the intention in the creation of the picture/video that counts i think and yes i know it's dumb as ****
Reply
+2
#32 to #11 - crlmsonhazard (12/19/2015) [-]
thank god
Reply
+1
#55 to #11 - thehistorylover (12/20/2015) [-]
... the law doesn't always agree, sadly.
Reply
+11
User avatar #17 to #10 - Sewallman [OP](12/19/2015) [-]
Back in 1968 we let parents decide if their children could be subjected to that.
Reply
+3
User avatar #31 to #17 - manofparody ONLINE (12/19/2015) [-]
So wait..


Is the movie considered child porn, now? Is it even legal to have a copy of that movie?
Reply
+5
User avatar #42 to #31 - thatguyontheright ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
Recent home video releases have the scene removed or edited down so we don't see her tits, namely the DVDs and Blu-rays. My Laserdisc of the movie does.
Reply
+3
User avatar #33 to #31 - rheago (12/20/2015) [-]
Nah
Artistic nudity is fine
To some degree atleast
Reply
+6
#54 to #10 - thehistorylover (12/20/2015) [-]
... I too want to know this.
Reply
+8
User avatar #51 to #10 - ablakguy (12/20/2015) [-]
I saw the movie back in HS. Honestly the nude scene was the morning after when R&J were in bed and Juliet realized it was morning and she quickly turned over revealing one breast for a half second. Thats it.
Reply
-1
User avatar #100 to #51 - toosexyforyou (12/20/2015) [-]
You can see both breasts perfectly fine if you just google it
Reply
+9
#56 to #10 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
becuase nudity in and of itself does not constitute pornography
Reply
+10
User avatar #47 to #10 - Mortuus (12/20/2015) [-]
Child pornography laws are about as confusing as US foreign policy.
Reply
+2
#66 to #47 - stonetomcat (12/20/2015) [-]
It was confusing as **** even before I found out that lolis are legal, and now I simply don't know what the ass is going on with the USA
Reply
+2
User avatar #99 to #66 - severepwner (12/20/2015) [-]
Child pornography isn't illegal because we as a society find it gross, it's illegal because it requires children to be sexually exploited in order for it to exist.

In lolicon art, there are no kids, there is no sex. There's just the artist. Remember why you made something illegal, because of morality, not because of silly taboos.
Reply
+2
User avatar #71 to #66 - lordbrauner (12/20/2015) [-]
I thought lolis were still illegal in certain states? Or has that been repealed?
Reply
+3
#72 to #71 - stonetomcat (12/20/2015) [-]
Not sure, but I feel like I'd have the NSA all over me if I look it up
Reply
+2
User avatar #73 to #72 - lordbrauner (12/20/2015) [-]
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Guess we'll have to wait for someone savvy in the flatchest to blow through here and answer.
Reply
0
User avatar #114 to #72 - Mortuus (12/20/2015) [-]
They can see what you're looking at, but they're not looking for your porn. They're looking for your bombs.
Reply
+2
#78 to #71 - alarubra (12/20/2015) [-]
>>#72 Loli is legal at a federal level, but illegal in many states. Here's a helpful color coded chart that will tell you if you can get sent to jail for looking at drawings on the internet.
Reply
+1
User avatar #86 to #78 - shyyguy (12/20/2015) [-]
Cool, thanks for that.

Ohio master race, again
Reply
+2
User avatar #88 to #86 - alarubra (12/20/2015) [-]
Texas.
Reply
+1
User avatar #90 to #88 - shyyguy (12/20/2015) [-]
Not sure if you know, but what if you stayed at a hotel in a red state, looked at lolis, then went back to your home in a green state? Or do these laws generally only apply to residents of said state?
Reply
+4
User avatar #95 to #90 - alarubra (12/20/2015) [-]
If you're in the state, you're expected to follow it's laws for the most part. It's not like a resident of Colorado can walk down the street in New York smoking a joint and when stopped by a cop just say, "Nah man, it's legal where I'm from." I'd assume the same principle applies.
Reply
0
#118 to #95 - sacrilegious (12/20/2015) [-]
For the most part?

For all part.
Reply
0
User avatar #131 to #118 - alarubra (12/20/2015) [-]
There are exceptions. Foreign ambassadors come to mind.
Reply
0
#139 to #131 - sacrilegious (12/20/2015) [-]
I'm sure many FunnyJunkers are foreign ambassadors.
Reply
0
User avatar #140 to #139 - alarubra (12/21/2015) [-]
Bitch, you don't know.
Reply
+1
User avatar #89 to #88 - shyyguy (12/20/2015) [-]
I honestly didn't even consider loli to be illegal at all. Since it's just drawings, not hurting anyone afterall...
Reply
0
#138 to #78 - stonetomcat (12/20/2015) [-]
I find it slightly ironic that Florida is in the red zone, considering how much crazy **** goes on there
Reply
0
User avatar #129 to #78 - vortexrain (12/20/2015) [-]
I should move. I have loli on my computer.
Reply
+2
User avatar #67 to #66 - Mortuus (12/20/2015) [-]
Honestly, art should never be illegal, regardless how pornographic or morally questionable. The point of child pornography laws is to protect children... If that helps people get off on drawn **** instead of kids, then so be it.
Reply
+1
User avatar #68 to #67 - stonetomcat (12/20/2015) [-]
That's a fair point, but considering how many other things America has censored, I'm just confused
Reply
+3
User avatar #70 to #68 - Mortuus (12/20/2015) [-]
Land of the free, and home of the largely naive.
Reply
+34
User avatar #44 - catkyte (12/20/2015) [-]
my highschool showed this to every freshman class every single year for like 10 years.

last year i was reading the news and apparently while showing this movie one of the kids just randomly whipped his dick out in class and started whacking it to this movie. i live in Massachusetts.
Reply
0
#117 to #44 - sacrilegious (12/20/2015) [-]
what does massachussetts have to do with it?
Reply
0
User avatar #137 to #117 - catkyte (12/20/2015) [-]
i was afraid someone would assume i was from a state full of inbreds
Reply
+2
#122 to #44 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
why
Reply
+15
#27 - cryangel (12/19/2015) [-]
GIF
Jokes on you, 15 is legal in my country
Reply
+1
#28 to #27 - anon (12/19/2015) [-]
13 is legal in mexico.
Reply
+1
User avatar #59 to #28 - manstuff (12/20/2015) [-]
Not quite, look up "estupro"
Reply
+1
#58 to #28 - thehistorylover (12/20/2015) [-]
13 is legal in New Jersey, apparently, as long as you're 17 or younger ... but I could be 100% wrong here.
Reply
+1
#60 to #58 - theXsjados (12/20/2015) [-]
Coincidentally, this is called the "Romeo and Juliet" clause. Most states adopted it after young teen males started getting "unfairly" pegged for statutory rape. Some states call it the "closeness in age" clause. It basically makes it so that a sexual act between two people who are within 4 years of age of each other cannot be statutory rape.
Reply
+1
#61 to #60 - thehistorylover (12/20/2015) [-]
I approve of that law. x3
Reply
0
User avatar #107 to #60 - mrsixinch (12/20/2015) [-]
I thought that was just some ******** that Transformers 4 pulled
Reply
-1
#69 to #60 - tsukaza ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
Does this clause... Please tell me it has an age limit.
Reply
0
#84 to #69 - theXsjados (12/20/2015) [-]
Yes and no, see they all tend to stop at age 13 because someone under the age of 13 tends not to be able to be charged as an adult. If a 14 year old convinces a 7 year old to have sex with them it could be put to case that the 14 year old should be charged as an adult and then the consequences of their actions would stick with them into adulthood, while if an 11 year old convinced a 7 year old to have sex with them then the lack of maturity in both parties would make it impossible to charge either as an adult and the charges would disappear at 18 years old anyways, so there's no point in going through legal motions (though the case would be forwarded to social services to investigate the parents).

There's a blurry line where curiosity and simply "things children do" become malicious. A 14 year old may still have that simple childish curiosity when they convince the younger child to participate in sex, but they also could full well know exactly what they are doing and purposely targeted the younger individual in order to manipulate them. Unfortunately law has to be strictly defined so 13 it typically the defined age.
Reply
0
#85 to #84 - tsukaza ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
So it's mostly a law for the 13-17 year olds in America then?
Reply
0
#110 to #85 - theXsjados (12/20/2015) [-]
There are no laws that really govern what 13 and 17 year olds do. Both are underage so in both cases the consequences will be expunged from their permanent records at 18. This law mostly governs what happens if an 18, 19, or 20 year old (final max age depends on state) is found having sex with a minor. 4 years or more difference and it's statutory, because an 18 year old should know that having sex with a 14 year old is illegal whereas the same teen having sex with a 17 year old is more of a blurry line
Reply
0
#87 to #85 - theXsjados (12/20/2015) [-]
The law exists mostly to protect teenagers. I know of several situations where an 18 - 19 year old has been sent to jail for having sex with a 17 year old. I find that unacceptable, and now so does the law.

There is a lot of stigma associated with any crime that has anything to do with sex. Sex offender registration includes statutory rape. These laws were made in response to young (mostly if not all) male teens who were simply being human beings and have frivolous sex with their peers from becoming outcasts from society for doing what everyone expects them to be doing anyways.
Reply
0
#93 to #87 - tsukaza ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
I'm sorry if I seem to be interrogating or being rude to you. I don't mean to be. Mostly curious and thinking that law is BS. It's creating an exception and that exception is a bad one.
Reply
0
#91 to #87 - tsukaza ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
But isn't it stupid that the law finds acceptable a 17 and 14 year old having sex but not a 17 and 18 year old? No matter the amount of time till the 17 hits 18 years old?

Surely the 17 & 18 sounds more... respectable?

Here in the U.K. the age is a flat 16 As far as I'm aware. and I don't think there's a deviation for any reason if one party is under and the other over the limit.

I guess what I'm trying to say is why have a freaking law saying only 18+ unless you both are 14-17?
Reply
0
#96 to #91 - theXsjados (12/20/2015) [-]
Under age of consent doesn't matter.

If one party is AOC and the other is not then the "closeness in age" clause kicks into effect, if the older individual is more than 4 years older than it is statutory rape, if 3.99 years of age older or less than it is not statutory rape.

The law doesn't really define what minors can do with each other instead it focuses what a non-minor and a minor can do.

Underage folks can do whatever they want really, as long as the age gap isn't humongous (eg a 17 year old an a 9 year old is a bit too much and the 17 year old risks being charged as an adult).

The point of the law is to prevent the terrible stigma that comes with sexual crimes. A 16 year old who screws a 15 year old risks sex offender status in your locale; where as places with "closeness in age" clauses recognise that 15 year olds and 16 year olds will have sex if they want and the older party should not be stigmatized the same way a child rapist would be (as far as official government sanctions go).
Reply
0
#97 to #96 - tsukaza ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
I'm guessing when you said "The law exists mostly to protect teenagers. I know of several situations where an 18 - 19 year old has been sent to jail for having sex with a 17 year old. I find that unacceptable, and now so does the law. "

You meant this law is meant to stop that?
Reply
0
#109 to #97 - theXsjados (12/20/2015) [-]
Yes. One of my professors is a deputy warden of one of the correctional facilities of Connecticut. He is close friends with or is a sibling of (I forget which) a man who had sex with a 17 year old when he was 18. Because of how the laws were written back then this man was charged as a sexual offender and now carries not only the stigma of a felon but also the stigma of a sex offender. He has since established a "normal" life. Wife, and kids, and such, but it beckons the question: how would he have fared if he was never stigmatized as a felon and a sex offender. Even now he struggles by with a poor job. If he was never marked as a "sex offender" what kind of job would he have now.

Connecticut (my home state) had been getting better lately, with our board of pardons and parole being run by a man who was falsely accused of murder and exonerated. We adopted our own "romeo and juilet" clause, but we have failed those who came before the clause.
Reply
0
#121 to #109 - tsukaza ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
Nothing much can be done for those that come before the clause though. There'll be something you'll suffer which later generations won't have to as well. Until Utopia is achieved... (Yeah, right).
Anyways, I guess I was reading the comments wrong first of all and mostly. As I too think the law should be like that. You don't just hit a certain age and think "Let's do this now" and nobody should be given punishment for sleeping with somebody who's within the same school year as them but due to birth dates.... As long as there was consent on both sides of course.

Personal fact about me: I lost my virginity at 15 to a 16 year old girl. There was only about 4 or 5 months (I forget, It was like 7 years ago) between us and it would have been astronomically stupid if she did or were to get punished for that.

Just a side question, does this law in any way stretch to uh... Nude pictures?

Would they still get charged with peadophilia if the age of the person on the photo was like 16 / 17 and the person who owned the picture was like 18? Under the assumption that the picture wasn't being shared around of course.
Reply
0
#124 to #121 - theXsjados (12/20/2015) [-]
Nude pictures are wildly considered differently by the law. You can dick every 12 year old or older girl in your state if you are 16 or older (in a closeness in age states) but god forbid you take a single picture.

Underage ponorgraphy, with a few grandfathered exceptions, is any sexually nude depictions of an underage individual. Pictures of a young baby girl's first time in the tub don't qualify, nor do pictures of nudists (both are not considered "sexual" in nature), but if the picture is of an underaged individual and for any reason it can be quantified as "sexual" in nature (posing sexually, or fondling) and then you're basically screwed. UNLESS it's not explicitly stored as a permanent file on your computer or cell phone. For instance, In New York City, browsing a site that hosts pedophile content and has images or videos that depicts minors engaging in sexual acts or engaging in recording or photos of a sexual nature is not illegal; the way computers store these files is considered "temporary" and such files will eventually be automatically be deleted off of your system eventually, whereas making a permanent copy (downloading and saving the file) of any of such material become child pornography.

So if you go to the darkweb of "redtube" for childporn (and you don't scoop up 100 FBI scripts, because it's generally illegal federally (there's a difference between state and federal laws)) and watch a video or two you're in the clear in NYC, but if you download one and "permanently" store it on your computer you're technically in possession of child porn ( a lot of FBI bait sites run scripts that store copies of such content into a permanent destination on your computer; thus allowing them to bust you for child porn).

When I was 16 I had A LDR with a girl in Tennessee, she send me nudes. 80% of them were sent when I was 17 or younger, but just a few came in when I was 18. The few that came in when I was 18 are technically considered "child porn" BUT we shared photos over a cloud based service so there photos were never saved as permanent files on the device I was viewing them on, as such I was legally in the clear for viewing her 16 - 17 year old tits.
Reply
0
User avatar #77 to #69 - ghchamp (12/20/2015) [-]
nope, even if you're 40 you can still legally have sex with a 16 year old if you're within 4 years of their age.
Reply
0
#79 to #77 - tsukaza ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
Right, well I guess there are 11 year olds ******* 7 year olds then. Case cleared!
Reply
+23
User avatar #39 - navadae (12/20/2015) [-]
and she had great tits at 15

...we watched it in lit class
Reply
+15
#34 - shadowdoogen (12/20/2015) [-]
I remember watching that movie in High School, all the ghetto kids starting whooping when it came to that part.
Reply
+6
User avatar #105 - waterlinx (12/20/2015) [-]
We watched that film in english in highschool, she's got quite a set of tits.
Reply
0
User avatar #111 to #105 - theugandanhero (12/20/2015) [-]
God yes.
Reply
+3
#98 - crixuz ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
Directors fw
Reply
-6
#22 - anon (12/19/2015) [-]
This is ******** because that makes the film child porn.
Reply
+2
#48 to #22 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
just a prank bro
Reply
+4
User avatar #35 to #22 - Sewallman [OP](12/20/2015) [-]
It's technically a form of art
Reply
0
User avatar #106 to #35 - mintea (12/20/2015) [-]
What is, the film or child porn?
Reply
+1
User avatar #64 - vacillantfall (12/20/2015) [-]
For 15 at the time, she had an amazing rack. No shame in that. I was a minor when Isaw the movie so doesnt count
Reply
+1
User avatar #62 - kibbleking (12/20/2015) [-]
Is that Quentin Tarantino?
Reply
-10
#38 - asotil (12/20/2015) [-]
Uhhh guys?

I think Keanu Reeves and Nic Cage might have another member of the Bloodline
Reply
0
User avatar #40 to #38 - navadae (12/20/2015) [-]
picture of some random faggot... who are you talking about?
Reply
+1
User avatar #112 to #40 - theugandanhero (12/20/2015) [-]
That's Zack Efron.
Jeez, it's like you've never seen High School Musical before.
Reply
0
#41 to #40 - asotil (12/20/2015) [-]
Look at the guy on the right and watch the scene. Movie was made in 1968

That's Zac Efron, some ****** from Disney Channel who was the **** in like 2007
Reply
-1
User avatar #43 to #41 - navadae (12/20/2015) [-]
you`re reaching.. and its not working out for you
Reply
+1
User avatar #50 to #38 - beloth (12/20/2015) [-]
I see the resemblance
Reply
+1
#9 - anon (12/19/2015) [-]
I remember seeing that movie in 10th grade in high school. I remember Mercutio being great, though the movie was maybe not the best.
Reply
-2
User avatar #46 - xedeid ONLINE (12/20/2015) [-]
We watched it in highschool, and they left that scene in. This may be a little pedophilic, but I don't care, I'm gonna say it: that girl had some nice ******* tits. And then a few seconds later, you get some high quality Romeo ass.
Reply
0
User avatar #135 - unseenshadowz (12/20/2015) [-]
Actually watched this version in highschool. Mainly because my English teacher was creepy.
Reply
0
User avatar #134 - samoaspider (12/20/2015) [-]
if anyone wants to see her tits

www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tour/movie.php/2731
Reply
0
#133 - anon (12/20/2015) [-]
This is actually false. Check imdb.
12>
[ 140 comments ]
Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

No entries found.
<
>
 Friends (0)