Fark.com linked to some nude pics of Demi Moore. These are not the ones from Vanity Fair in 1991, when she was pregnant. She appears much younger, and the photos are the kind you would see in Hustler, but not Playboy. They’re pornographic enough that I am suspecting that they are fakes, but most of them look pretty authentic (in one her breasts look much larger than the others, and it looks like it would be from before she had them enlarged).
Are these beaver shots of Demi Moore legit? If so, when were they taken, and what magazine were they originally published in?
My computer is down (has been for 3 weeks) & I’m on the public library Net so I can’t check the pics- if young Demi is shown with medium breasts & full bush, the pics are legit & came from early 1980s (maybe even late 70s) OUI magazine, I believe.
I can assure you that there were millions of guys who wouldn’t have hesitated if given the opportunity to dive in down there back in the day, regardless of whether Miss Moore shaved or not.
Christ, it seems that it’s quite alright for a guy to have a set of blcok and tackle so hairy that you have to part it with a comb, but if a woman has some hair down there it’s somehow a crime against humanity.
THAT is supposed to be unusually hairy? Grotesque, even? Boys, and I hope you are boys and not adult men, perhaps you should stop finding your dates at the junior high. :rolleyes:
Day-amn! That woman has always been fine! Why on Earth did she get implants? Those are perfect!
When did I ever say it was a crime against humanity? A little maintenance goes a long way is all I’m saying.
And let’s be real here, those pictures were taken in 1981 when Demi was 19 years old, right about the age that most of you are cracking jokes about as being right out of Junior High.
Ain’t none. If you look on "fark.com’ you scroll down to find a link that takes three and half years to open. But if you click on the “comments” to Demi Moore site, someone has provided a link that opens up much quicker. I’m not sure if it’s okay to post the link here myself, but you can find it fairly easily.
It’s amazing to me the amount of controversy generated by a photograph that, in its era, was just your standard Playboy-centerfold shot. Why not discuss some 1950s centerfold in terms of how ugly that pouffed-out hair (on the head) looks?
I noticed her somewhat hirsute nature, but didn’t comment on it because I realized styles have changed. I’ve seen enough old porn to know that was the norm then.
I disagree that these are quite ‘your standard Playboy-centerfold shot.’ Playboy, until rather recently, has obscured a woman’s genitalia in their shots, either a raised leg, satin sheet, whatever. That’s part of what made it a more ‘high-class’ porno mag, and separated it from raunchier mags like ‘Hustler’, which WOULD include pics of a woman straddling a chair backwards, where you could probably see her cervix if you had better lighting.
IMO while most of the other photos are real that super furry, spread legged “demi3.jpg” shot that everyone is reacting to, is a pure (and incredibly obvious) Photoshop cowboy exercise.