23 thoughts on “Scarlett Johansson Naked (2 Photos)”

    1. tk123

      You’re an idiot. They were confirmed a long time ago. And she’s standing to the side so she is looking in the right direction.

      Reply ↓
    2. Py

      What? The camera (phone) in the mirror is exactly where it should be and the direction she’s facing perfectly matches the image in the mirror.

      Reply ↓
  4. TropicalStorm

    What makes it worse for the dude who hacked/leaked these pics is…She eventually did a movie fully nude anyway.

    Sucks for dude. :/

    Reply ↓
    1. Draman

      And yet, you are here, looking at the photos stolen by disgraceful hackers. You are invading her privacy, if that is how you feel.

      Reply ↓
  11. ایمان

    چه حالی میکنه دوست پسرش وقتی کیرشو تا ته تو کوس این عروسک فرو میکنه

    Reply ↓
  12. Bodie Broadus

    I’m a newer visitor to thefappening, with my first browsing being maybe 2 weeks ago. So far, it has scored hard on maybe 5 celebs, and failed on 100 or more. At least half of the celebrities should be removed from the library as they contain zero nude pictures, despite nude pictures of them existing, and they only contain clothed pictures that are open to the public, showing up 15 times if you just Google image searched their name with Safe Search turned ON.

    Is there a way for visitors to contribute? There’s at least 30 celebs missing that I could add a folder on and fill it with nude pictures that are easily found on Google with the phrase, “{hot celeb’s name} nude” typed in. Most importantly though, I’d like to see those celebrities whose folders only contain non-nude public photo’s deleted. I am NOT at all opposed to celebrities on here having non-nude picture folders. But when a single photo is all they have under their name and it is from a PG photo shoot, they need to be removed. I’ll give 4 examples of types of things that need to happen:

    1. Marisa Tomei — Missing from site. Plenty of nude pictures and screen shots exist. Add her and her public nudes in a folder under her name, and a secondary folder for any hot clothed photo shoots.
    1.a. Stacey Dash. See above.

    2. Lena Headey: Yes, she’s hot. No, I am not opposed to non nude pictures of her being on the site. But her folder contains ZERO leaked photo’s, and ZERO nude photo’s whatsoever. The only photo’s under her name are from an Esquire photoshoot. Why do they belong here? I’m sure she’s been in dozens of photoshoot’s. Why does this particular set belong on here? Having her name on the list with nothing leaked, only a set of published and widely disseminated pictures, and/or nothing nude, is just a waste of space and it clutter’s the list. If there were nude pictures listed under her name, I would be 100% in favor of having this set in her non nude section. But they’re not even a risque set of photographs. Just a PG set of pictures that are more conservative than any Victoria’s Secrets mailer that is often handled by children under the age of 10 when they bring in the mail for their parents while running inside from the bus stop after school.
    2.a. Kate Micucci: Who is this? She’s not hot; she looks like a 12 year old boy. Her folder has ONE picture. One. And it is of her wearing old lady underwear with pantyhose. Yes, it’s apparently a leak. But this is an easy judgement call. Clutter. Delete
    2.b. Kat Dennings: This one is debatable. She has TWO pictures listed under her name. She is hot in Thor, and yes the two pictures under her name are leaks. But they are in the dark, she looks like she’s either possessed or heavily intoxicated, and there is absolutely nothing exposed. It claims she is naked, but the first of the only two pictures looks like she’s absolutely wearing clothing. This one can go one of two ways — Delete because it’s more clutter with no nude exposure and nothing riveting. But it could also be saved because it does, indeed, have two leaked pics, and by by adding any number of the pictures that pop up when you Google image search “Kat Dennings hot,” it could make for a good library of pictures. As it sits now, it’s clutter and such a waste of a click.

    3. Kylie Jenner: First and foremost, SHE’S A MINOR. But I’m just using her as an example for my main point. There are FAR TOO MANY celebrities with picture folders exactly like this. Is this a leaked photo site, a porn site, or just an any celebrity picture site? Let’s set aside for a second that she’s a minor. There are dozens upon dozens of celebrities on here whose folder is just filled with a bunch of publicly published non nude photo’s. All her folder contains is a bunch of Instagram and Facebook pictures. We can go on her social media pages or Google her name any time we want to see these pictures. Like I have said already, I am all for compiling numerous photo’s of a particular attractive celebrity. But there should be guidelines as to what is required to open a library under their name. Publicly published non nude pictures should NOT count. Once a single nip slip hits TV, a see through shirt or up skirt shot is caught by paparazzi, or an infamous iCloud account is hacked for photo’s of any kind (nude/non nude), THEN a Library for that celebrity can be opened up, the first folder is “Leaked pics” and all subsequent ‘hot’ pictures that are publicly published can be posted under a subsequent folder. It is so aggravating to click on a celebrity’s name on here, only to find all of the photo’s are non nude social media pictures published to the world, and the library doesn’t even contain nude pictures that I know exist. There needs to be some guidelines to resolve this, “just post whatever the fuck, leave out whatever the fuck, include random celebrities while leaving out A-list hotties” bullshit.

    4. This is a problem I have seen hundreds of poster’s comment about on every single celebrity where this occurs. This is probably the biggest problem on here. Fix these misleading and inaccurate picture folder titles. The categorization on here is not even amateurish, it’s damn near malicious for the editor’s amusement. If you write “{celebrity name} topless,” the bitch better be fucking topless. This doesn’t mean bra, swim suit, or see through shirt. If you write, “{celebrity name} pussy,” I better be seeing a naked fucking pussy. Not her swimsuit bottoms, not her underwear, not anything but bare pussy. If the celebrity is naked or topless or having sex, BUT THEY ARE COVERED/COVERING THEMSELVES, you should HAVE to write, “{celebrity name} naked — no nudity.” or, “{celebrity name} topless — covered,” or, “{celebrity name} having sex — no exposure.”
    4.a. Demi Lovato: Three folders, three misleading titles stating nudity. No nudity whatsoever. “Pussy (7 photos)” – No pussy. At all. 4 pictures show nothing but underwear, and 3 pictures don’t even show exposed underwear, just her fully clothed (what the fuck. seriously)
    “Naked (7 photos)” – SAME THING. No nudity. Half of them are fully clothed. One doesn’t even show her freaking body, just her head. (retarded)
    “Naked (3 photos)” – ONE picture that ACTUALLY has her naked….and it doesn’t even show nudity. The other two have her completely under the blankets (this shit is intentional)
    4.b. Claire Richards: One picture folder titled “Naked (3 photo’s).” All three pictures show a naked, but fully covered Claire Richards. No nudity at all. Should be annotated in the title.
    4.c. Christina Milian: Another awesome post of retardedness.
    “Topless (18 Photo’s) – Absolutely ZERO nudity, and she is literally wearing a top in every photo except for 6 pictures. That’s great, if a 33% success rate with a 100% deceit rate is your goal. The six pictures where she is actually topless, are nothing but her silhouette as the photo shoot has her washed out with lighting effects so you just see her black shadow. Was it intentional to misrepresent 1/3 of this album and outright lie about the other 2/3’s?
    “Tits (10 photo’s) – This one is less insulting, but it’s still 100% misleading. There are beautiful side boob and cleavage photo’s. But there is absolutely NO bare breasts. They show a partial wardrobe malfunction, but the sticky tape to hold her top in place is completely covering her nipples, so the few pictures that show an off angle shot into the vulnerable sides of her top, don’t expose anything. This album should be annotated to reflect “no nudity”.

    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: STOP MISLEADING, STOP MISREPRESENTING, STOP PUTTING RANDOM PICTURES THAT DON’T MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE FOLDER TITLE, AND ABSOLUTELY START ANNOTATING “NUDITY” AND “NO NUDITY”.

    Bonus Suggestion: Do some freaking maintenance/Spring Cleaning
    5. Kirsten Dunst: All photo’s taken down. None remain. Delete celebrity. Clutter
    5.a. Lake Bell: All photo’s taken down. None remain. Delete celebrity. Clutter
    You took these pictures down and decided, “Fuck it, I’ll just leave their links with nothing inside.”

    I don’t know if these images are user submitted, how I can add my own, or how we as a community can police this site to clean up the bullshit, maintain out of date celebrity libraries, and fix the picture folder titles to make them accurate by annotating their nudity content and removing incorrect titles, but this shit needs to be done. Otherwise, this place is going to die out. Celebrities are now all over their personal electronic picture libraries. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve all stopped using iCloud and other similar online storage altogether. But short of someone gaining access to their computers and/or camera’s and uploading their pictures to the internet without their knowledge, these leaks are going to become more and more infrequent. We can absolutely fill up celebrities picture libraries with sexy published photo’s, but that can’t be the basis of starting a file on a celeb. Especially when the only pictures we have to post of them are from a widely shared set of pictures from a PG photo shoot or social media post, that contains zero sexiness and can be found all over the place. With good maintenance and cleaning, coupled with more integrity when categorizing and compiling, we can make this a good site to visit for a long time to come. Right now, it takes 2 visits before the novelty wears off, and that’s solely because of the BS outlined above.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *