sashajones said:

Serious said:

sashajones said: Are you a man or a woman?

Are you serious? Yes. I am a woman and no I will bend over for you, spread my legs for you and play with my kitty for you while you take pictures, so take that!

LOL, I agree 100% on this, but I don't think that a woman who does that for her husband/significant other is automatically a hoe. I will say that a woman wishes to do that, she needs to acknowledge the possibility that it'll leak/go viral/be sold. The Information Age don't play. If she's still cool with it after that, then by all means, do what it do.

If not, put up a "No photography allowed" sign and make sure the hoo-haa stays in hiding. Elusive creatures, those hoo-haa...

MyNameIsPiper said:

sashajones said:

Are you serious? Yes. I am a woman and no I will bend over for you, spread my legs for you and play with my kitty for you while you take pictures, so take that!

LOL, I agree 100% on this, but I don't think that a woman who does that for her husband/significant other is automatically a hoe. I will say that a woman wishes to do that, she needs to acknowledge the possibility that it'll leak/go viral/be sold. The Information Age don't play. If she's still cool with it after that, then by all means, do what it do.

If not, put up a "No photography allowed" sign and make sure the hoo-haa stays in hiding. Elusive creatures, those hoo-haa...

Deem hoo-haa's are some slipper slope mothersuckas ain't they?

I knew these two hoo- haa's who took some pics of use in a room with us do...

Wait, I forgot on the world wide web...

If you see any pictures/videos with two men and women with a maniature Louisville Slugger bat, anywhere on the web or Facebook, it ain't me!!!!

Nevermind.

Meowwwandgoodbye.

I just can't FUCKIN' wait to watch that video

The whole thing is in incredibly bad taste however...it was his marriage too and if he wants to profit from his own experience being J.Lo's hubby before she became J.Lo then so be it. I refuse to watch. #1 - Ojani is rather unattractive and #2 Jennifer's clothes were unimpressive back then. Her ass was probably a lot bigger which I'm sure the fellas will appreciate.

HotGritz said:

I refuse to watch. #1 - Ojani is rather unattractive and #2 Jennifer's clothes were unimpressive back then. 3 Her ass was probably a lot bigger which I'm sure the fellas will appreciate.

1-don't give a damn

2- don't give a damn, in fact I expect to watch her taking those clothes off

3-

Legal
documents state that the mother-of-two is seen flashing her private parts and
displaying other 'deviant behaviour'.

No action?

They got better movies than that at the Liquor Store.

It is hilarious and predictable that media would spin a married woman getting nude with her husband as "deviant behaviour" while someone selling private home movies of someone against their will is presumably just being "enterprising."

Jennifer Lopez Heading Back to Court to Stop Sex Tape

Jennifer Lopez is heading back to court on Monday (June 6) to prevent ex-husband Ojani Noa and his partner from selling intimate video footage to internet porn sites.

The steamy home video in question is from Lopez's 1997 honeymoon with her first husband, whom she met when he was a waiter in Miami. The marriage -- which lasted from February 1997 to January 1998 -- may have been short-lived, but the 'American Idol' judge is still haunted by her ex.

Noa, who briefly managed a Lopez-owned restaurant after the couple's divorce, has tried launching tell-all ventures about his J.Lo romance in the past, including a book that the pop star successfully blocked in court.

Lopez won a permanent injunction in 2009 that prohibited the footage from being released as part of a planned TV project. Noa recently "sold" the film to his longtime girlfriend and business partner, Claudia Vasquez, who now plans to officially release it via a distributor, as a judge has signed off on the apparently legal scheme. So far, Vasquez has reportedly received offers "in the millions" from top porn sites for the sexy scenes.

A lawyer for Vazquez insisted that the home video is not technically a "sex tape," and has insisted that in the approximately 27 hours of footage that his client owns (of which he estimates 15-20 minutes contain nudity), Lopez is not taped surreptitiously, but was instead freely allowing herself to be filmed at the time.

^^she should stop trying to fight it.It's gonna leak,one way or the other.The world will get the chance to see this film,regardless of what any court says.

Timmy84 said:

And yes we're all perverts and freaks so what...

Exactly. Ain't nuthin' wrong with being a ho or a freak in the bedroom.

From my understanding, there isn't even any sex on the tape. Just nudity. What's the big deal? Now, if the film was her on all fours, clawing at the bed sheets and biting her bottom lip then i could understand the excitment.