Need there be a reason?
Yes, OP, there should be a reason, because shes actually ugly. And before you ask, i don't like Uma Thurman aswell. They are both average girls, it is stupid PR "wooah sexy" that makes you think that they are hot.
I disagree. She's very sexy and beautiful in my opinion
since you're a mod and only your opinion matters, why don't you just delete the thread instead of posting in it?
That guy that thinks that she is neither beautiful or sexy needs to get out of his basement more . . .
hes one of those live with mom basement dwellers that couldnt get a girl to sleep with him if his life depended on it, yet hides that fact by saying his standards are through the roof.
LOL, I remember seeing her in Hackers with that pixie/Romulan haircut, getting her name from the credits and thinking "Just like me to form a crush on a girl from some dumb movie like this. I bet she never shows up in Hollywood again."
I know this is kind-of a weird request, but does anyone have photos from this year? I'm curious to see if/how her style and attitude have changed during photo shoots.
Lost tits to cancer, still a more powerful sex symbol to me than any porn star could be.
>real or fake
Even though she was first celeb crush, have to admit her breasts aren't that spectacular on their own. But even if she had a complete DLC, she'd make it work. Dat face doesn't hurt either.
>She didn't lose them to cancer, but she got them cut off because her family is high risk. Dem titties now fake.
Stupid fucking bitch voluntarily had her breasts cut off because she's got the gene that theoretically puts her in a higher risk category. Instead of cutting out inflammatory foods and carcinogenic foods, instead of increasing her nutritional intake, she cut off her perfectly healthy breasts.
Fucking dumb as shit.
>She had an 87% risk of cancer before the surgery. After, it got cut down to less than 5%. I'd say she made the right choice.
Bullfuckingshit. No way to predict that accurately. And again, instead of lifestyle changes to reduce the likelihood of the gene expressing into cancer (presuming that's accurate in the first place), 'hey, chop my cancer free tits off!'.
Also, the 5% isn't accurate either. Cancer rates are at 1 in 3 people in the us right now and moving to 1 in 2. By that it's impossible to be below 33%, right?
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Having said that, research shows that adequate levels of vitamin D reduce the incidence of breast cancer by 83% and the category all forms of cancer by 33%. Did her doctors recommend that? No. Somebody had the bright idea to, with a serious expression on their face, convince a healthy woman to chop her healthy tits off.
>Having said that, research shows that adequate levels of vitamin D reduce the incidence of breast cancer by 83% and the category all forms of cancer by 33%
Bullfuckingshit. No way to predict that accurately.
>>Having said that, research shows that adequate levels of vitamin D reduce the incidence of breast cancer by 83% and the category all forms of cancer by 33%Bullfuckingshit. No way to predict that accurately.
>She had an 87% risk of cancer before the surgery. After, it got cut down to less than 5%.
Incorrect understanding of how genetics work.
Ugly ? She's just perfect. If you really find this girl ugly, you got a problem. She's just a sex symbol, the sexiest woman you could find. Anywhere.
I actually do find her pretty ugly. Not because I have high standards, but because I find most every woman in Hollywood, or even running around in real life, more attractive.
It may be the massive duck lips that turn me off hard.
Ha-Ha-Ha! Best joke I've heard today. Jolie is the "sexiest woman you could find" "sex symbol". Rofl.
Sex symbol is not a pile of bones, without any curves and with an average face, kiddo.
Also, she was pretty obviously became bulimic after hackers. Dated a few bulimics, you can tell by how their skin hangs off them like an ill fitting suit.
She's "hot" like everyone said Linda Hamilton was hot in Terminator 2. That is to say, not hot at all, but women want to "you go girl" her because women have a perverse desire to foist uglies on men for some reason.
>I'm sure you know those things much better than any of the oncologists she consulted.
You mean the oncologists that haven't improved 5 year cancer survival rates over the past 80 years?
You mean the quacks that advised she cut off her perfectly cancer free breasts?
You are sure, and you are correct in that surety.
"You have some polyps in your ascending colon. There is a chance you'll get cancer. So we suggest that we remove your ascending colon."
"I have cancer???"
"No you do not have cancer, but having polyps correlates with getting colon cancer, and cancer is bad, so even though you don't have cancer and we're not going to discuss why you have polyps in the first place, we think we should remove an important cancer free large part of your body. How about Tuesday?"
>She watched her very dear mother die from cancer. Not saying what she did was right or not but that probably colored her perception of it.
I'm sure it did color her view of it. Most people wouldn't consider removing healthy cancer-free parts of their body, so there was some major emotional motivation going on there (which clouded her rational mind).