[emoji33] [emoji47] [emoji40]
View attachment 3298707
Yep, that's the rear view (snicker) of the $395 selection I was referring to.
I see .... pornography.
I see .... an alien face.
I see .... something Urkel would wear.
And I honestly wonder how they got her bottom large enough to "fill it out" so much for the picture. (Of course, she still does not fill it out enough to prevent the pornography, but relatively speaking.)
Seriously, I'm genuinely asking ... how *did* they get her bottom big enough to fill it out as much as it does? Believe me, I'm the last person to do any body-shaming, and I mean absolutely no offense to anyone. Based on the legs she's obviously a very trim model. So how is there such a marked difference between thighs and bottom? Padding? Photoshop? (God help me, it's not one of those Kardashian people, is it?)