Diddy's Kids -- Chippendales Rescue Rangers

76. Knowing "da culture" it pretty much sickens me. He doesn't look like a proud father, but like a pimp standing over his women.

Posted at 6:31PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Here in N'awlins

77. Once again, Duddy confirms he is an idiot with no taste and sh** for brains.

Posted at 6:43PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Bonnie

78. awwww, they are such cute baby girls!!! I love the picture and who here does not have baby pics of us naked lmao!!

Posted at 6:34PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Sarah

79. I do not like these pictures!!! Diddy what were you thinking

Posted at 6:33PM on Oct 25th 2008 by CB

80. G-H-E-T-T-O! How tacky! Put some clothes on those babies!

Posted at 6:38PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Princess

81. Just goes to prove that old saying "Money can't buy you class"!

Posted at 6:43PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Princess

82. Yes, I have pictures of my little darlings (boys and girls) naked when they were babies/toddlers, but the pictures were for family viewing only.....and neither my husband nor I posed alongside them, looking soulfully at the camera. There's a vibe to this picture that's just wrong.

Posted at 6:41PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Buddha Lady

83. Lovely children. Why is he exploiting them? Does he need the money?

Posted at 6:42PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Kay

84. I can tell you why this is wrong...because WHITE star had done this with their girls it would be called child porn and abuse, but since a rich black man did it we are supposed to call it "Cute and stylish". I think it he is gross and he needs to put his kids clothes on and take them back home! Little girls need to be DRESSED like little girls.

Posted at 8:11AM on Oct 26th 2008 by Dana

85. Disgusting! Who in the world would let this be published? People raise a big stink about Miley Cyrus is a sheet and not this??? TMZ you should remove it from your site.

Posted at 7:07PM on Oct 25th 2008 by PSR

86. 39. This picture disturbs me. These girls should have on a type of top. They are not 1-8 months old. Kim, what were you thinking. Notice how one girl has her hand between the other girl's legs?

Posted at 4:15PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Jack

Put your glasses on Jack. The one little girl does not have her hand between the other little girls leg, she has it "resting " ON the other little girls leg, Not between it as you so grossly and ignorantly suggest. They are babies for goodness sake, they are not perverted yet like you sound to be. And why should they have on a top? Do they excite you, you pervert? Welll get over it, they are innocent little baby girls.

Posted at 7:10PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Jack pisses me off

87. How could he do this to his kids???? pedophiles love to see any skin on kids. Sad but true.

Posted at 7:14PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Canadian girl

88. I think it's a sweet picture and you all are perverts. Kids are sweet and his are adorable. How do you know they are naked and so what if they are. Come on, they are tiny!

Posted at 7:15PM on Oct 25th 2008 by tinachasam

89. I was about to add my comment but #79 pretty much just said it all...

79. Yes, I have pictures of my little darlings (boys and girls) naked when they were babies/toddlers, but the pictures were for family viewing only.....and neither my husband nor I posed alongside them, looking soulfully at the camera. There's a vibe to this picture that's just wrong.

Posted at 7:24PM on Oct 25th 2008 by sugarberries

90. Hasnt he ever seen to catch a predator, I mean its some nasty perverts out there that would actually be aroused by something like this, its basically child porn, and for him to be famous and do this is disgusting!!!!!!

Posted at 7:24PM on Oct 25th 2008 by Itailya