October 11, 2007 | 6 Comments

2007_10_11_britneyvadge.jpgWe’re really not sure why anyone would even bother posting yet another shot of Britney Spears’ vag at this point—including us. So just forget you’re reading this and skip to the next post already, OK? (egotastic.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Author:Jonno

View all posts by Jonno →
  • Conrad

    Not wearing underwear (for anyone)is not news worthy.

  • Conrad

    Not wearing underwear (for anyone) is not news worthy.

  • Anonymous

    While I can fully expect prostrated wails of impending doom and faux outrage from some corners I can admit to being somewhat perplexed in regards to some of the reactions to Brit’s seemingly perfectly presentable vagina. Am I missing something? Regardless of the woman’s other qualities, or lack thereof, her vagina by all appearances deserves to see the light of day as much as anyone’s. To paraphrase Duvall’s Lieutenant Col. Kilgore, someday this flashing gonna end.

  • Jonnobot

    We didn’t say “vagina”; we said “vag”. (Yes, there’s a difference.)

  • Atomic645

    I don’t know if any of you are familiar with female anatomy, but no. There is no vagina in that pic.

  • Anonymous

    She is trying to show her puss of at a better angle. The first 1 didn’t make her puss look all that great, but these new ones are much better. No amount of new puss shots from fake-ass Paris Hilton will ever make her puss look good.