Justin Bieber

Reply to Justin Bieber on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:13:15 GMT

pornofan — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:13:15 GMT

Snap judgments are often incorrect. The Daily News is not terribly likely to have ponied up a lot of loot to a photographer for fakes. In context with all the other shots included in the sequence, there is no reason to suppose the frontals and ass crack are ringers, like the kind of edited crap inserted into dishonest Planned Parenthood smears.

When you check out the entire sequence at The New York Daily News or other site, you might also discover larger and more clear images that do show the "missing" ink. There has been some discussion of what can be seen via telephoto lens operating from a considerable distance, but at least the Canadian has not himself denied anything, which if they were, in fact, fakes, he should have done by now. It's not as if acknowledging the alleged fraud would help promote it.

Also, as it happens, and for whatever it is worth, Justin's father Jeremy does not seem to have any doubts. In typically classy faction, he has tweeted admiration for his son's apparatus:

The tweet: "@justinbieber what do you feed that thing. #proud daddy"

That may not be dispositive, but it works for me. Arianna's Clickbait Gazette revealed the parental acknowledgement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justin-bieber-jeremy-bieber-tweet-penis_5617fc82e4b0082030a26722

Reply to Justin Bieber on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:52:53 GMT

lipelo — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:52:53 GMT

pretty sure it's a fake

Reply to Justin Bieber on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:18:19 GMT

raphjd — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:18:19 GMT

It's clearly not him.

The person in the pics doesn't have the 3 chest tattoos JB does. He's missing the crown, cross and roman numerals.

Reply to Justin Bieber on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:07:11 GMT

agogpry — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:07:11 GMT

Reply to Justin Bieber on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:18:27 GMT

pornofan — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:18:27 GMT

Thanks for sharing the uncensored versions. The story is that the tatted badboy was caught by a telephoto lens while vacationing in Bora Bora. The pictures were then sold to the New York Daily News, somehow or other, and they published them not because of press freedom but because they could make money and fame off of the privacy invasions. And then they censored the actual Issue, front and back, so that you cd see neither cock nor crack. OTHERS were not so craven.
Seems to me he can make a legal complaint over the newspaper publication, perhaps because of the censorship, in that he has been ripped off, fully embarrassed (if he is capable of embarrassment at this point), and that the tiny black boxes look like he is microhung.
As it turns out, there has been much discussion of that latter pointy object all over the social net, with some saying he looks generously blessed and others scoffing that it is "not small at best." Yet others thought were disappointed when they looked at his temporarily idle plunger as it sprawled lower than his twin swingers, though IRL performance any such complaint probably would owe more to the quality and skill of the operator than the size of the tool.
40 years from now, Bieber will undoubtedly be damn grateful to have such documentation of his wild and horny laddish days, apart from whatever archive of images of his flesh taken by self and others. This somewhat narcisistic butt picture, for example, may already be here somewhere, but he did take it himself, post it himself, and then take it down out of proclaimed sensitivity to the innocence of younger fans who might be traumatized by seeing a naked butt but will, naturally, have no trouble admiring the waste of ink all over his frequently displayed skin.