Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these babies

This forum is intended for the discussion and sharing of information on the topic of British born and British-based female performers in hard-core adult films and related matters.
HotBoxinfo
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these ba

Post by HotBoxinfo »

Very, very well said, Pumpkin.

These forums do not exist for bitching purposes, especially about beautiful and talented people who have done nothing to deserve it!

Lauras tits - and the rest of her wonderful attributes- are nothing short of fabulous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jj
Posts: 28225
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these ba

Post by jj »

Industry figures clubbing up to protect its interests?

Some of the comments were, I agree, cruel. I've never been intentionally
rude to any girl who's posted here, and I've been posting here a lot longer
than you. But I think you're understimating Laura's intelligence when you
assume she didn't expect some negative comments- it's not as if this
subject [and similar criticism] hasn't cropped up before after a girl has
proudly announced her new 'superstructure'..... girls who put themselves
in the public domain by doing porn are inevitably judged solely by their
appearance, and tastes naturally differ.

But that shouldn't be allowed to disguise the observation that a portion
of the trade seems to want plastic, and a large-ish slice of the public doesn't.
Isn't the tail wagging the dog? Or more sinisterly, is there covert but real
pressure out there on the more malleable girls to 'go large', a vague idea
that bigger= more work?
It's the Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name that girls in porn are not
usually the sharpest thorns on the rose-bush [yes, there are exceptions,
as always]- and sure, it may be a better option than working in a
call-centre.
But while I'm sure that the majority are perfectly nice, attractive hard-
working lasses, the truly 'beautiful and talented' [does it take much 'talent'
to fuck on camera?] women are usually to be found running FTSE500
companies or out ligging with Kate Moss.

"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
Pumpkin Media
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these babies

Post by Pumpkin Media »

I realise some of the comments here are posted by keyboard warriors to provoke a reaction but IMO some comments here have gone way OTT.

I must say I find some of the comments on this thread highly offensive, although everyone is entitled to there opinion, the way some of the comments have been expressed are unnecessarily rude insulting & very derogatory towards any lady in Adult Industry who may be thinking of or had breast enlargement.

Accusing girls who have boob jobs of having low self esteem & lacking intelligence is ridiculous & stupid, comments were also made that no bloke likes fake boobs except rich sugar daddies who want a trophy Barbie Doll, this is also totally inaccurate & wrong as many guys enjoy the look of girls with big boobs natural or enhanced.

Maybe a few of you should take a look in the mirror before dishing out offensive comments towards others.

Laura?s operation was only a week ago & her boobs look great already, they will look even better once they have settled down.
Mysteryman
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these babies

Post by Mysteryman »

If her op was only a week ago, where are the scars?

The photos have therefore been heavily manipulated to eradicate them. The boobs look unnatural and, though they may settle down, will never look anything other than fake.

Pumpkin, Pumpkin Media and HotBoxInfo (all from the same locality in Bristol by any chance?) have a perfect right to defend the decision for Laura to have the op and no-one should attack any woman's intelligence on the basis of one decision but HotBox Info is well aware that the OP was placed here to generate publicity for the girl, an Internet based TV show and an Internet site and, having placed their information and opinion in a public place, can only expect a reaction - good or bad.
jj
Posts: 28225
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these babies

Post by jj »

Pumpkin Media wrote:
> Accusing [some] girls who have boob jobs of having low self esteem
> & lacking intelligence is ridiculous & stupid,
[I'll let you get away with the 'straw man' tactic you used, of omitting
that cautionary 'some' from the above]..... and no, it isn't 'stupid and
ridiculous' merely because you happen to disagree; it's a last-ditch attempt
on my part, in ther absence of any other obvious explanation, to try and
find a rational answer to what to me, at least, is a puzzling sociological
question.

How would YOU explain the phenomenon's prevalence then?
What we seem to be left with by your lights, then, is a large bunch of
highly intelligent, supremely talented women who wish to undergo quite
radical surgery solely for the purpose of better filling out the clothes they
buy.
That's even more insulting than some of the comments posted above : -)

"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
pumpkin
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these babies

Post by pumpkin »

Oh no mystyman has rumbled us ,he knows that pumpkin , pumpkin media ,and hotboxinfo are all from bristol well done sherlock ....
perhaps we should have tried to hide our identities just to make it more scandleous
and the pictures he must have has his magnifiing glass out on those to and deducted that they were heavily manipulated da .da. da .da . another case solved by the phantom rasberry blower ....
Mysteryman
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these babies

Post by Mysteryman »

That's pathetic Pumpkin. Can't you defend your position with a reasoned answer, getting my name and spelling of simple, common, English words correct in the process, rather than coming back with a ya-boo, playground level response?
pumpkin
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these babies

Post by pumpkin »

oooooohhhh mystyman you done it again detected a spelling mistake
god your good ...
na na na na naaaaaaaaaaaa
pumpkin
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Laura Michaels; 32B to 32DD - look at these babies

Post by pumpkin »

The scars are are not visable as they were inserted through her vagina..
come on this is now rediculous ,im not going to post on this thread anymore ,
im sure most of you have got better things to do on a bank holiday than contibute to pointless crap
anyway happy easter to you all (you to mysteryman) lol
Post Reply