Posted by tommy2tone on February 17, 2002 at 10:12
In Reply to: Kournikova wetspot ? (link) posted by Maculatus on February 16, 2002 at 05:24
(sorry for double posting, but people might not see the old thread)
Is everybody so tired of N's phantom shadows that they are ignoring clear evidence here? I agree that #19 is not a wetting, it just looks yellow because the green tennis court surface is reflecting up to the crease in her white shorts.
BUT these 3 show her blue shorts absolutely soaking wet, JUST between her legs: 4, 7 & 15. No sweat elsewhere. The wet spot starts small and then spreads upward, which is reallistic when the initial flow only gets the shorts directly between her legs and then the totally flooded underwear dampens the outer shorts from underneath. (The number 9 which somebody else criticized doesn't even show crotch level or lower for comparison).
If you only looked at the small thumbnails, you don't get good resolution when enlarging them. I registered, which is free, so let's try these links here:
http://www.kournikova.com/photos/logged20/adidas/pic4.jpg
http://www.kournikova.com/photos/logged20/adidas/pic7.jpg
http://www.kournikova.com/photos/logged20/adidas/pic15.jpg
-----
Hugs and wet kisses are OK, but I prefer kisses and wet hugs, Tommy
Email: