February 17, 2005

Pamela Anderson in nude, anti-fur campaign

No additional commentary needed. Image below the fold.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 07:37 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

1 My god she's built like Barbie. Barrel chest (even without the boobs) and a child's waist. No wonder men go for her. Yecch.

Posted by: caltechgirl at February 17, 2005 07:45 PM (bwprt)

2 Full admission: I used to read Playboy. Yes, that included the articles and no, that's not the reason I bought the damn thing. Anyway, I remember the first time I saw Pamela Anderson: she was the (mostly) clothed cover model for the October, 1989 issue, which featured Girls of the Southeaster Conference. Why do I remember this? I'm something of a beautiful naked girl savant. I thought at that time that the cover girl was much prettier than any of the women inside the magazine. Fast forward a few months. Now Pamela Anderson was INSIDE the magazine. She looked amazing. Still does, too, despite the variety of sizes that her boobs come in. And you're right about men being physically attracted to her. Even those of us that might find her other traits off-putting still cannot full resist the effect on our limbic system.

Posted by: physics geek at February 17, 2005 08:51 PM (Xvrs7)

3 I wouldn't exactly call it your limbic system....

Posted by: caltechgirl at February 17, 2005 09:33 PM (bwprt)

4 :-P Okay, you have a point.

Posted by: physics geek at February 17, 2005 09:37 PM (Xvrs7)

5 I think Pam is HOTT and i also think that if posing naked gets peoples attention then go for it,she got my attention but she don't have the pose to get my attention!

Posted by: I love pam at February 17, 2005 10:14 PM (fo+EC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
17kb generated in CPU 0.0129, elapsed 0.0976 seconds.
91 queries taking 0.0901 seconds, 237 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.