Does Yas Forums know any movies that prominently feature underarms?
Does Yas Forums know any movies that prominently feature underarms?
coom
Anything by Madonna
God I wish I were her
why?
she is so sexy.
Carrie Coom actually
What the fuck does this mean.
>birthday theme is wood
>dick is wood
>gift is fuck her and slap her with his dick
what's to understand?
Pits.
miss bala
it even has them right on the poster
What is a "gift for five" and why is it wood?
their fifth year of marriage birthday
every year they have a theme to exchange gifts.
Ah OK. Thanks. Thought it was different substances for certain amounts of years, wood, silver, gold, diamond, etc.
why are hairy pits so hot
Wedding 'anniversaries' rather than 'birthdays'. Pretty much every realistic anniversary has a substance associated with it.
>hairy
disgusting
>fuzzy
yes please
bump
who is she?
Biel always does
Don't post that webm where she closes her eyes, sticks her tongue out and move her tongue as though under the welcoming of sperm from a hard cock.
That webm drives me absolutely bonkers.
Why do I like armpits? I don't like them sexually but there's something aesthetic about them that can make or break a woman's image.
i want carrie coon to be my mommy
ah-bloo-bloo
Armpits. The only thing that make one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises watchable. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books were good though r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
I thought that was anya taylor-joy from the thumbnail, got all excited and disappointed afterwards