Foo
Landed Gentry
Posts: 976
Mar 6, 2005 18:58:09 GMT -4
|
Post by Foo on Feb 24, 2015 16:09:31 GMT -4
She sounded like Britney, but it was much better than actual Britney, even at Britney's "peak."
They should just pay Christina to sing Britney's vocals. Would Britney even notice?
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Feb 24, 2015 16:45:58 GMT -4
They should just pay Christina to sing Britney's vocals. Would Britney even notice? Maybe Britney can retire for real.
|
|
|
Post by deeconsistent on Feb 24, 2015 19:52:30 GMT -4
She does a kick-ass Samantha Jones impression and a spot-on Britney impression. I'm starting to think this broad might be a blast at parties.
|
|
|
Post by Spinderella on Feb 25, 2015 2:34:31 GMT -4
Her make-up artist was just like "Fuck it. I'm not even gonna try to blend into your hairline. I'm just gonna stop about two inches out." It actually looks like her hair may be too thin and damaged to even attempt and the differences in color between her tan, her scalp and her hair highlight it. At this point postpartum, it's when her hair starts falling out and her skin can exhibit a lot of funky shit. I have/had a crap-load of hair that was long and after MiniSpin was born, 1-4 months in hair does come out in mass quantities. However, that doesn't change the fact that she's had makeup quandaries for quite some time. The pulled back ponytail look isn't for her and she should leave that to Ariana Grande (who herself should stop sportin'). But the junk in the trunk, she really did that work done? I don't understand that whole procedure and how it would sustain after gaining, losing and then getting pregnant and after birth. I mean, is it silicone or injections of fat?
|
|
|
Post by Coffeecakes on Feb 25, 2015 4:33:52 GMT -4
Either one. Kim Kardashian and Khloe got fat injections. Which is why Kim's ass is so diapery between shots or with weight gain, etc.
|
|
|
Post by deeconsistent on Feb 25, 2015 8:46:45 GMT -4
I don't think she has had butt augmentation. Not that's she's "above it" (she clearly had her boobs done and more recently some facial procedures), but her butt doesn't sit separately from her upper thigh, if that makes any sense. Kim's juts out above her thigh and looks like it was glued on. Christina is really short and her weight has fluctuated quite a bit in the last few years. I think she just has the type of body where weight goes to her backside, hips and thighs right away. This pic is from 2012. She's more voluptuous and her backside is more prominent than it's been in the past. This pic is from 2013. She's very slim and her derriere is more petite. Her butt didn't look like it was glued on in any of the pics I googled. It looked like it gradually increased in size from her thigh. And, of course, she probably wears shaping undergarments, so that makes her look curvier.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 2:27:29 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 9:09:03 GMT -4
Agree. And thank you for the thorough assnalysis!
|
|
SApril
Blueblood
Posts: 1,262
Mar 17, 2005 17:35:34 GMT -4
|
Post by SApril on Feb 25, 2015 17:31:24 GMT -4
I don't think she has had butt augmentation. Not that's she's "above it" (she clearly had her boobs done and more recently some facial procedures), but her butt doesn't sit separately from her upper thigh, if that makes any sense. Kim's juts out above her thigh and looks like it was glued on. Christina is really short and her weight has fluctuated quite a bit in the last few years. I think she just has the type of body where weight goes to her backside, hips and thighs right away. This pic is from 2012. She's more voluptuous and her backside is more prominent than it's been in the past. This pic is from 2013. She's very slim and her derriere is more petite. Her butt didn't look like it was glued on in any of the pics I googled. It looked like it gradually increased in size from her thigh. And, of course, she probably wears shaping undergarments, so that makes her look curvier. Nope. It's not gradual. This is a candid from 2012 without the butt pad.
|
|
|
Post by mrspickles on Mar 26, 2018 18:03:23 GMT -4
From the land of way deep in the page history. Posed for a magazine 'completely without makeup or hair extensions'. To me that looks more like 'very minimal makeup' but damn, she has a gorgeous face and should go without all the heavy make up more often. Definitely doesn't look 37. I'm not being snarky, I just don't think anyone over the age of 10 has skin like that. If she really does, then I really congratulate her.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 26, 2018 18:11:36 GMT -4
She's actually an attractive person. I had no idea! I'm not being snarky, I just don't think anyone over the age of 10 has skin like that. If she really does, then I really congratulate her. 6 layers of spackle have been protecting her skin from the elements for 20 years. Her skin is probably all soft and tender like skin that's been under a bandaid.
|
|