Posted on 11/04/2009 7:55:41 AM PST by TexasCajun
PORTLAND, Ore. (CBS/AP) Hollywood actress Sandra Bullock is embroiled in a custody battle between her husband and his porn star ex-wife.
Bullock is standing by her celebrity-mechanic husband, Jesse James, as he fights his ex-wife Janine Lindemulder's attempts to regain custody of their five-year-old daughter, Sunny.
James has had sole guardianship of the child since Lindemulder, an adult film star
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Which one is the porn star? Or is there really any difference?
Would it be possible for the custody battle to be decided by oil wrestling?
Nasty tattoos.
What a waste of a good porn star.
Why the tats, Janine?
Best,
Chris
Foster care.
Honestly I don’t think Bullock has ever done any particularly racy scenes in any of her movies.
Bullock is no porn star...she has a decent rep actually.
She was a pretty lady, pre-tattoos (and pre-being a whore).
Tatoos suck.
Bullock sucks.
James sucks.
Start a vacuum cleaning service.
Kid reports to foster home.
Are there any other ways to insert the words “porn star” or variations thereof into the article?
“...Bullock, not a porn star, is standing by her celebrity-mechanic-but-not-adult-film-star husband, Jesse James, who is also not a porn star, but who has a name like an adult film star, as he fights his ex-wife porn star Janine Lindemulder’s attempts to regain custody of their five-year-old daughter, Sunny, who under no circumstances would be an adult film star before she was eighteen years old, but after then could legally become a porn star, like her porn star mother, the porn star.”
And what a shame I find Sandra Yummy
Janine was a LOT more attractive pre-tattooing.
Sandra Bullock has ZERO legal standing in this issue no matter what state the argument is being heard in.
She is by blood unrelated to the child and only married to the Father; that gives her ZERO rights with the child.
Very misleading headline.
I’m old. I remember Janine just did Penthouse pics for many years....then lesbican crap and then full blown.
She did a homemade movie with Vince Neil where that clown had trouble “performing” with her and another girl...so much for rock star virility.
James seems to have reconstructed his life in a good way and Bullock is the reason...I hope they win. Reports in the media on Janine are not good....wacky....but she looked much better as a young tat-free lass. Any pretty woman debases herself with that self mutilation to that extent has self esteem issues....grave ones....not to mention hardcore porn is a Rubicon moment period.
She’s one of my favorites too.
Be well al baby.
What do you have against Sandra?
And seems to be one of the busiest actors out there. you have a good day
When I see tattoos like that on an otherwise serviceable woman I like to think they are faux tattoos. But probably not. Is there some limit to the amount of ink you can carry in your skin before it becomes unhealthy? I realize that tattoos are often part of a self-mutilation behavior which is linked to some serious psychiatric and behavioral problems, but is there an “ink load” limit that has been determined?
ping
The headline is 100% misleading since it’s James, not Bullock, who is fighting for custody. However, the fact that he has a stable relationship with Bullock will work in his favor at court, ESPECIALLY since Janine just got out of jail and, I read, is making something like $13 an hour because she can’t work in porn right now because of her record.
Body ink tells me just one thing: “DON’T HIRE ME!”
Yes. Once upon a time, the "profession" of acting was viewed by polite society as little better than prostitution and thievery. For some unknown reason, that viewpoint changed around the middle part of the 20th century.
Some have said that change was not warranted.
“otherwise serviceable woman”
Wow, what a disgusting choice of words.
Yes, there has: More than 9 square inch of exposed tatooed skin, and you're officially "bonkers."
Tatoos of anchors, regimental insignia, etc. on the forearms of military men excepted.
Regards,
???
Earth to Sandra: Get tested.
See my post #26.
Once upon a time, lots of things were viewed differently.
I rest my case.
There couldn't possibly be a connection between being a porn-star and having self esteem issuses ...
could there?
Um...ink-and-porn ping???
custody battle because she is/was a porn star, or because she didnt pay taxes? or kinda both or?
Bullock now has tats of her own.
Sad.
I have a tattoo...and even I think those are nasty.
Nope. In fact, her first nude scene was in the Proposal, where she accidentally bumps into a naked Ryan Reynolds. The audience never sees anything though. Disappointing... Ryan Reynolds is lovely eye candy.
People used to scream for Janine to do guys in her films.
Then, she finally started doing guys and nobody cared.
I think she missed her peak.
Ya' tellin' me there was a guy in that scene?
I didn't notice ...
In demolition man she was disgusted at the idea of actual physical contact during sex.
You might be reading more into "serviceable" than the poster intended... it's a synonym for 'reasonably attractive', not necessarily objectifying.
She only has one, and she got it as a tribute to her mom, who was dying. The tat is located over her heart.
HAHAHAHAHA! As a 40 year old chick, I have nothing but admiration for Sandra, who is 44, for going completely nude at this point in her career. She looks better than women half he age.
CBS has notched out a toehold in the paparazzi business.
I don’t know where Sandra stands politically, but she seems like a pretty conservative gal when it comes to matters of the heart. You rarely hear anything about her unless she is promoting a film. She stays out of the spotlight.
If Sly Stallone was in that scene, I can understand why! Ryan Reynolds is all kinds of fine.
I thought I saw one on her shoulder?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.