Question is ...
Natasha vs. Lauren: Who'd You Rather?
Who'd You Rather?
11/9/2010 3:15 PM PST BY Johnny Lopez
21 COMMENTS
2.
Sweet Jesus, These two are only in their 20's? Hint girls women only use make up to look older when they're 16 and trying to get in a bar. They both need to scrape of a layer or 50.
0
0
4.
Here's another vote for adding "None of the Above" or even "Yuck!" to your Polls. Can't tell you how many I pass up for not having that option.
0
0
5.
Lauren is 24?! thought she was 31, wayyyy too much make-up and da otha chick if i was drunk only....
0
0
7.
THEY BOTH LOOK LIKE SOCCOR MOMS.
IN THEIR 20'S? ARE YOU SURE?
GET OUT OF THE SUN YOU HAGS.
ONE OF THEM HAS GREEN HAIR AND HOUSE TEETH
AND THE OTHER ONE IS ORANGE AND FAT.
RATHER? NEITHER : (
0
0
9.
They both look incredibly old. Lauren Conrad has more wrinkles under her eyes than my great-grandmother does on her entire face. I don't find her attractive at all.
0
0
11.
I need to clarify, I thought Natasha was near 40 before I saw this picture, it had nothing to do with thinking she looked old, I thought I had even heard that she was in her late 30's before.
Lauren on the other hand is beautiful and the people that said she's not are just regular jealous girls and probably weigh 300 pounds and look like Cruella DeVille.
To the one that said she had wrinkles - are you blind? She doesn't have a wrinkle on her face! The 2 "lines" you see are her lower orbitals. Everyone has them, check a mirror some time.
Lauren looks like a young Carmen Electra.
0
0
13.
I am in utter SHOCK right now!! Holy **** I seriously always thought Natasha was in her mid-late 30's!! She is only 28???!?! I love her and her music, but omg she looks 10 years older than she is...
0
0
14.
They both look 50. Lauren should stop tanning, the wrinkles she's had around her eyes for years are getting worse by the minute.
0
0
