Jessica Biel Might Have Worn Her Engagement Ring
Apparently Jessica Biel is willing to pull out her engagement ring on special occasions. Supposedly on Saturday night, at the SNL after party, Jessica was wearing a ring which could have been or might have been or kind of looked like an engagement ring. Of course there were no photos and only a bunch of really drunk people with shaky memories trying to describe what happened after. If she was wearing it at a party and people are kind of talking about it now then you would think she might be willing to bring it out in public in the next week or so and that rumor about how Justin only spent $25K on a ring for her and she was pissed and wanted at least $100K can be put to the test so we can see what she got. I just want to see the ring at this point so I can stop writing about it and move on to more interesting topics like why are sugar free foods, not necessarily reduced calorie foods.
The whole thing is bizarre. I'm starting to think the whole thing is BS. She seems like the type to that show everyone in the western hemisphere.
ReplyDeleteShe looks so unattractive in that photo. I don't get what people see in her.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they're engaged. I think they just decided not to bother correcting us on that point. Whatever. Those two don't excite me in the least.
ReplyDeleteThey tend to be higher in fat, and fat has more than twice the calories of sugar per gram. Gotta watch that!
ReplyDeleteI really don't care if these two are engaged or not just beucase his grandma said it (alledgedly) doesn't mean it is true.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they flipped the script and he is wearing a diamond cock ring instead.
The whole thing is a PR stunt, he won't marry her. Shoo it seems like he won't even invest much of his big big bank account in a ring for her. The whole thing is truly bizarre.
ReplyDeleteEnty, you need to get over them. They are not worth your focus.
ReplyDeleteSugar free foods can be bad because they have more calories than the sugar version. They add more shit to compensate for the lack of sugar. You really need to read labels these days. And not just the nutritional facts, but the list of ingredients. Some of the foods on the grocery store shelves may as well just say Ingredients: Toxins, poisons, and other shit that's bad for you.
It would be a shame if these two got married, with or without a ring, there is no chemistry between them, at least that is visible.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy these two together AT ALL- zero chemistry. And bitching about ring does not bode well for future together.
ReplyDeleteI think at this point we can all agree there is no ring.
ReplyDelete*crickets*
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled by Low Fat either, check the sugar content.
ReplyDeleteWhen I ask certain people about this low fat/non-fat/sugar free debate the healthiest and most fit of my friends always say:
ReplyDeleteeat the real shit and just portion control.
And I tend to think this makes the most sense.
@Audrey -- An ass so taut it could stop bullets, that's her appeal.
ReplyDeleteIf she actually plays for the other team, fake-hinting a hetero engagement seems a little disrespectful of her GLB peers.
Jasmine, I've been saying that for decades. I only eat real butter, but I use less of it. Margarine is nasty bad for you. Same with the sugar substitutes.
ReplyDeleteAny carbohydrates you eat turn into sugar, even sugar-free foods. A small serving of something that tastes really good is more satisfying than some crappy sugar-fee dessert anyway.
ReplyDeleteBlogger Audrey said...
ReplyDelete"She looks so unattractive in that photo. I don't get what people see in her."
A straight woman not seeing the sex appeal of another woman? What are the chances?