I know what you want. Highly filtered, photo-shopped, professional quality, make-up pictures from the right angle. But does that really exemplify beauty? Or how well you can get dolled up?
This applies to a lot of the women you claimed were prettier than Britney, though. Especially Katy and Taylor.
No that isn't her natural beauty but I don't want highly filtered or bad shots like you posted.
You can deny her beauty but that won't change her beauty peak.
I don't even need to show that pic of your fave with craters all over her face with full makeup.
You don't have to. youkneekorn already did.
And I'm sure you already know photos taken under harsh lighting for the purpose of being photoshopped, isn't the same as natural lighting photographs. But drag I guess.
I feel sorry for people who have to clamor on about "Peak! Peak! peak!!" when it comes to everything including beauty.
If someone is beautiful, they won't degrade like Britney did. True beauty isn't that fragile.
Even Whitney for all the drugs she did and at a really old age didn't completely devolve.
I would imagine people are more receptive to a living, breathing human who can put on a lively show than a rotten corpse that sways in a stiff manner by rights of the Puppeteer.
