Teagan's Page

Comments by Teagan

Comments on profile pages (31)

@ Anonymous_boy: No, that's not accurate. These photos here in her biography are 'not' AI generated! The pictures on her biography page are real.

Posted by Teagan on Archita Phukan2025-07-24 13:35

@ Bi53xualnaughtyguy: Are you implying that you are transphobic?

Posted by Teagan on Viola Bailey2025-07-24 13:05 (edited 2025-07-24 13:08)

@ i_now_prefer_ass: She's 165 lbs (or 75 kg)

Posted by Teagan on Archita Phukan2025-07-23 11:04

@ MilfWorshiper : Actually, Archita Phukan is very much real. She’s a digital creator, plus-size model, and activist from Assam, India — and the photos in her biography are of her. If you’d bothered to read it, you’d know she was the victim of a deepfake scandal in July 2025, when her ex-boyfriend (Pratim Bora) was arrested for creating explicit AI-generated content using her likeness. So no, this isn’t a fake ID — but your comment sure skipped the homework.

Posted by Teagan on Archita Phukan2025-07-23 11:00

@ PleasantSunshine: Oh, you’re still monitoring this thread like it’s under FBI jurisdiction? Adorable. The stamina alone is admirable, considering this all started from your unsolicited novella about someone else’s personal content. But now, here you are—back again, armed with the same recycled indignation and self-appointed expertise, trying desperately to masquerade commentary as “concerned observation.” Nice try. But no one’s buying the “just pointing things out” excuse from someone who’s clearly running the Devon Shae Chronicles in their head.

And let’s not skip over that spicy AI denial spiral. You say it can’t mimic backgrounds, camera shake, and accessories across videos. Bold. That’s like saying Photoshop can’t copy a necklace because the pixels are too emotionally complex. Yes, deepfakes have limits—but your argument hinges on the idea that tech can't evolve beyond your assumptions. Spoiler: it already has. You're not citing expert consensus; you're clinging to personal disbelief dressed up as insight.

Now, about that clever little accusation of projection—cute, truly. You called my writing overwritten, frothy, and trying too hard… which is rich, considering you just dropped a paragraph built like a rejected audition tape for a podcast called Aggressively Wrong. You toss metaphors around like confetti and still expect people to take you seriously. If this is your version of nuanced debate, I’d hate to see what happens when you run out of adjectives.

And just for the record—yes, I typed this myself. Freely. Word for word, with no AI assistance. Which is probably why it actually reflects a coherent point, rather than sounding like a confidence-boosting script written by someone asking ChatGPT to “make me sound superior.” But thanks for the unsolicited psychoanalysis—you’re one metaphor away from diagnosing your own browser history.

Also, let’s be honest: your reply reads like it got outsourced to an AI that was told, “make it sound smug, but sprinkle in bitterness.” The cadence, the recycled clapbacks, the lack of actual substance—it screams “generated,” even as you wave your fingers accusingly at mine. If we’re tossing around accusations, yours came with more buzzwords than arguments. You didn’t counter—just clapped louder, hoping volume would pass for logic.

But you know what? I’m not here to match tone for tone. I’m here to point out that turning someone’s leaked trauma into your personal research project isn’t “commentary”—it’s digital obsession. And the fact that you keep showing up to defend it with this level of energy is… telling.

Thanks for the encore. The curtain dropped three comments ago. 👋🏼

Posted by Teagan on Devon Shae2025-07-12 03:02

@ thomasmarkel: Comments are nothing more than slenderest, hearsay, type of statements and claims. Which are all uncorroborated. 🙄

Posted by Teagan on Ariana White2025-07-12 01:10

@ PleasantSunshine : Wow. You really doubled down, didn’t you? Not content with just casually creeping on Devon’s life, you came back guns blazing with a sequel no one asked for. At this point, your “pattern recognition” is less detective work and more full-blown character study. You’re not analyzing—you're compiling dossiers like you’re auditioning for a role in You, season 5.

Your certainty about AI limitations is adorable—like watching someone confidently misread a user manual and insist they’ve mastered the machine. Yes, tech isn’t perfect. But it is capable of recreating visuals with frightening precision, especially when fed the exact content you obsessively cataloged. You’re waving around background consistency and necklace spotting like they’re smoking guns. News flash: that’s not evidence, it’s just… accessories.

Also, props for that reply—it reads like ChatGPT got a caffeine boost and decided to cosplay as a courtroom prosecutor. The cadence, the over-polished zingers, the suspiciously generic confidence? Yeah, it’s giving “AI-generated indignation.” Which is fitting, really, considering the original gripe was about whether something was fake. There’s something poetic about defending against deepfakes with a response that might just be one.

And about the DMCA takedowns—protecting one’s rights and dignity isn’t “nuking content in panic,” it’s called self-respect. You keep treating her digital housekeeping like it's a crime scene cleanup, when really, she's just trying to keep creeps like you from turning her into your personal screensaver collection.

Also, calling people out in a comment section you already infested isn’t “uninvited”—it’s necessary. If someone shows up spouting invasive nonsense, expect pushback. You’re not the gatekeeper of truth. You're the guy shouting on a street corner about how he cracked the case based on a necklace and TikTok choreography. It’s not activism—it’s voyeurism dressed up in self-importance.

Anyway, I’d say “get a grip,” but at this point I’m not even sure your fingers aren’t already glued to your conspiracy corkboard. You’ve mistaken fixation for insight, personal boundaries for a challenge, and being right for being loud.

Thanks for the performance. Curtain’s down. Show’s over.

Posted by Teagan on Devon Shae2025-07-10 09:12

@ Lalalamn You're Welcome. 😁 👍🏼

Posted by Teagan on Ana De Armas2025-07-10 08:08

🚏 📢 WARNING: The xxx site link in the comment raises a lot of red flags 🚩, so you might want to be careful about visiting it. It's most likely a malicious, phishing, spamming, and clickbait website. It claims of offering “free” content from OnlyFans is suspicious, as such content is typically behind a paywall and not normally freely available. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of the website and the methods used to obtain and distribute the content.

Posted by Teagan on Marisol Yotta2025-07-09 05:02

@ maotse: I'm not sure if you're responding to my comment—it's a bit unclear due to how the comments section is set up.
But if you are, I just want to say: what I wrote regarding the distinction between ethnicity and race is accurate, including the examples I provided.

The bigger issue lies with the Babepedia administrators and developers, who seem to misunderstand or overlook these differences. This is reflected in the terminology used throughout the site—terms that often can't be corrected when editing a biography. There are also several other inconsistencies baked into the system, such as fixed dropdown options for body type or hair color, which limit accuracy and flexibility.

Then there are vague or outdated identifiers like Caucasian (White) or Of African Descent (Black)—or even the question of whether someone should be referred to as African American or African North American. Let’s not forget: “America” is not a country, it’s a continent. Just as Africa is a continent, not a country. Different nations have very different approaches to how they classify race, ethnicity, and identity in censuses and formal documentation.

Posted by Teagan on Ana De Armas2025-07-08 13:30

@ PleasantSunshine: Truly awe-inspiring how you’ve positioned yourself as Devon’s unsolicited personal archivist. The passion, the scrutiny, the wild leaps in logic—you’ve practically turned digital stalking into an Olympic sport. Someone give this person a gold medal in obsession.

It’s almost touching how convinced you are that AI couldn’t possibly replicate necklaces or room decor—because clearly, deepfake tech stops at interior design. Never mind that actual experts have trouble telling real from fake; you, armed with your extraordinary powers of couch forensics and shaky logic, have solved the mystery. Bravo.

And your argument that taking leaked content down is “proof” of authenticity? Cute. That’s like saying someone throwing out trash means they secretly wanted to keep it. Maybe it’s less about guilt and more about not wanting creeps weaponizing content against her. But I know—boundaries are so hard when you’ve made it your full-time hobby to treat a human being like your personal drama series.

Anyway, I hope you find peace in this tireless quest for "truth." Or at the very least, a new hobby that doesn’t involve overanalyzing someone else’s life for internet brownie points.

Posted by Teagan on Devon Shae2025-07-08 04:31

@ CoffinDancer : Anastasia Doll was born on June 9, 1996, in Tyumen, Russia. If an article from 2015 claimed she was 20 at the time, it likely rounded up her age or relied on incorrect information. It’s not uncommon for media outlets to misreport details — especially with public figures who have undergone what some describe as “dramatic transformations,” like Anastasia and her former partner, Quentin Dehar. This is why it’s important to rely on reputable sources when verifying biographical data. Misinformation can not only distort public perception but also undermine the credibility of platforms that aim to present factual content. In the age of viral fame, accuracy matters more than ever — 🙄 because some people seem to rely on the absolute worst places when doing research.

For example, it’s surprising how often people treat sites like coomer.su, famousbirthdays, freeones, definebabe, classmodels, babesdirectory, indexxx, and others as reliable sources 🤦🏼‍♂️ — when in reality, these are mostly crowdsourced, entertainment-focused platforms that weren’t built for research accuracy. Even associated pages like Boobpedia, while sometimes helpful, should always be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism. The bottom line? If you’re serious about finding correct information, start with sources that prioritize editorial standards over popularity algorithms and provocative thumbnails.



Posted by Teagan on Anastasia Sweet2025-07-08 02:04

@ LeLoyon71: Yes — Latino and Latina are considered ethnic identifiers, not racial ones.

🧬 Ethnicity vs. Race

▪️ Ethnicity refers to shared cultural traits like language, ancestry, traditions, and geographic origin.

▪️ Race is typically based on physical characteristics such as skin color, facial features, and hair texture.


🔷 Latino / Latina Explained

▪️ These terms describe people from or descended from Latin American regions — including Mexico, most of Central and South America, and parts of the Caribbean.

▪️ They are ethnic terms, not racial ones.

▪️ Latinos/Latinas can be of any race: Black, White, Indigenous, Asian, or mixed.


🔹 For example:

▪️ Someone from Brazil is Latino but not Hispanic (Portuguese is the official language).

▪️ Someone from Spain is Hispanic but not Latino (Spain is in Europe, not Latin America).


🔹 When someone identifies as Latino or Latina, they’re expressing a connection to cultural and geographic heritage, not a race. And newer terms like Latinx, Latine, or Afro-Latino reflect evolving language and intersectional identities within this community.


🗺️ Global Census Approaches to Ethnicity & Race

🔹 Different countries approach census classifications in unique ways, especially when it comes to ethnicity, race, and identity. Here's a quick tour:


🌎 Canada

▪️ Uses terms like “visible minority” for non-white, non-Indigenous populations.

▪️ Respondents can select multiple ethnic origins (e.g., Irish, Chinese, Somali).

▪️ Census also asks about race, Indigenous identity, and cultural heritage.


🌎 Brazil

▪️ Focuses on skin color, not ethnicity, with classifications like:

— Branco (White)
— Pardo (Mixed)
— Preto (Black)
— Amarelo (Asian)
— Indígena (Indigenous)

▪️ Racial identity is self-reported and tied to Brazil’s colonial and multiracial history.


🌎 France

▪️ Does not collect data on race or ethnicity in its census due to strict constitutional principles about equality and secularism.

▪️ Focuses on nationality, country of birth, and immigration status.


🌎 Japan

▪️Census does not ask about race or ethnicity, reflecting assumptions of ethnic homogeneity.

▪️However, Indigenous groups like the Ainu and foreign residents may be included in targeted surveys.


🌎 United Kingdom

▪️ Offers broad ethnic categories like White, Black/African/Caribbean, Asian, Mixed, and Other.

▪️ Subcategories include more specific origins (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi).

▪️ Allows self-identification and custom write-in responses.


🌎 United States

▪️ The U.S. Census treats “Hispanic or Latino” as an ethnic category, separate from racial categories like White, Black, Asian, etc.

▪️ Individuals are asked to identify both their race and whether they are of Hispanic/Latino origin.


Posted by Teagan on Ana De Armas2025-07-08 00:29 (edited 2025-07-08 13:34)

@ EternalFreedomDharma : This reads like a failed audition for a Darwin documentary written by someone who just discovered Reddit statistics and mistook them for gospel.

What you’ve posted is a pseudo-intellectual word salad laced with eugenic undertones and disturbing fantasies about women “fading away,” “regretting their lives,” or “ending themselves.” That’s not edgy — that’s dangerous, degrading, and morally bankrupt.

Claiming that women “not evolved to adapt” deserve to have their DNA erased is not science, it’s cruelty dressed in a fake lab coat. And painting lonely men as tragic victims who must “jack off” to survive? That’s not empowerment; it’s defeatism masquerading as insight.

If you genuinely cared about the health of society, maybe start by advocating compassion, emotional intelligence, and self-reflection — instead of trying to pass off your bitterness as evolutionary theory.

Posted by Teagan on Ashlyn Dupont2025-07-07 22:19

@ AngelOfDeath01: “What all of you need to understand…” Ah, the classic opening of someone convinced they possess divine insight. Let’s be clear: labeling women as “dumb bimbos” and “gold diggers” isn’t just lazy — it’s textbook misogyny. You’re not critiquing behavior, you’re clinging to outdated stereotypes that say more about your insecurity than about anyone’s ambition.

If a woman chooses to chase fame, monetize her image, or build a brand — guess what? That’s agency. That’s entrepreneurship. That’s a strategic use of the digital world you also inhabit. Not every woman is interested in fitting your idea of “wife material,” and frankly, the arrogance of thinking they should is exactly why you’re left pontificating in comment sections.

Maybe reconsider what achievement actually means in 2025. Hint: it’s not pleasing anonymous internet men.

Posted by Teagan on Ashlyn Dupont2025-07-07 22:17

Something about her eyes, 10/10 !!✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨

Posted by Teagan on Katya Sambuca2025-07-04 22:29

@ duned : Bro, she's only 21yrs old. A young adult female with a firm bubble butt, and wide hips is not that unusual.

Posted by Teagan on Patricia Tarka2025-07-02 06:26

@ Oosquai: Bro, it's fascinating how confidently you speak on what’s real when authenticity clearly isn’t your strong suit.

Posted by Teagan on Vanessa Reinhardt2025-07-02 06:05

@ Oldsocalpunk, and malvado14 : I've heard people argue that she's either 5'6" (167.64 cm) or 5'8" (172.72 cm), but I’ve never once heard anyone claim she’s 5'1". As far as I remember, she was listed at 5'8" when she was 19. She’s 23 now, and unless something’s changed recently, she’s still 5'8" (172.72 cm) and weighs around 127 pounds (57.61 kg).

Posted by Teagan on Mati Marroni2025-07-01 23:18

@ Pryda (admin) 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁, there is no definitive evidence confirming that ‘Olivia Casta’ and ‘Maria Tretjakova’ are the same person as of June 18, 2025.

It’s important to recognize that nearly every model featured on this platform has, at some point, used techniques like airbrushing, Photoshop, or AI-powered tools to enhance their appearance. These practices have been widespread in photography for decades—𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺.

Olivia Casta’s case is far from unique. The power to alter images has existed for generations, used by professionals through lighting tricks, retouching, and digital manipulation. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆—today, virtually anyone can refine how they present themselves online with just a few taps.

From celebrities and influencers to everyday users, digital enhancements are commonly used to create more polished, idealized versions of oneself. This ongoing evolution raises valid questions around authenticity, perception, and how we define identity in the digital age.

Returning to the ‘Olivia Casta’ topic, the debate remains fueled by hearsay, conspiracy theories, and online speculation—𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. Meanwhile, over a hundred+ obviously AI-generated or digitally altered model profiles continue to circulate, on Babepedia unchallenged. 𝗧𝗼 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹.

Given all this, I believe it’s premature and potentially 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 like “𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲” at the top of the ‘Olivia Casta’ profile. As of now, there is no verifiable evidence proving that ‘Olivia Casta’ and ‘Maria Tretjakova’ are the same individual, or that this persona was wholly AI-generated or digitally constructed.

Until such evidence is made publicly available, 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲—𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁—𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. If the site feels compelled to address the ongoing speculation, 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲. For example: “𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹'𝘀 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.” This approach respects the truth, reflects the current uncertainty, and avoids misleading visitors with unverified assumptions.

Transparency matters—especially in a digital landscape shaped by both perception and pixels.

Posted by Teagan on Olivia Casta2025-06-19 05:37 (edited 2025-06-19 05:37)

@ Goddessnet: Everything you've shared and stated appears to also be filtered, through hearsay, questionable sources, and your own perspective—which you’re certainly entitled to. Now, If you want to talk, Filters or Face Apps, Olivia Casta’s case is far from unique. The ability to alter images has been around for decades, long before advanced AI-powered tools became mainstream. Photographers have long used techniques such as lighting adjustments, airbrushing, and Photoshop edits to enhance or entirely transform the way subjects appear. But again, there’s no solid, definitive proof that they’re 100% AI-generated. Or that Olivia Casta and Maria Tretjakova are one and the same. Are there similarities, yup! Is it unusual, nope! Calling Olivia Casta a fake without evidence, while saying nothing about the 100+ “fake” AI-generated profiles on this platform, that is undeniably hypocritical.

Posted by Teagan on Olivia Casta2025-06-16 02:05

@ TheMilkCollection: Yet you still haven’t proven anything. Everything you’ve stated relies on hearsay, unreliable sources, and your personal opinion—which you’re entitled to, of course. But again, there’s still no definitive proof that they’re 100% AI-generated. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Posted by Teagan on Olivia Casta2025-06-16 01:30

@ Anonymus10: Note that the link you've shared (viralxxxporn) is known to have security risks, that could cause internal harm to your device, such as malware, phishing, ransomware, and other malicious threats.

Posted by Teagan on Addison Ivy2025-06-16 00:49 (edited 2025-06-16 00:49)

@ madvlads : Even if she was still alive, she wouldn't be going home with you anyway, so don't worry about it! 🙄


Posted by Teagan on Diana Deets2025-06-04 07:42

Out of all the photos out there of her, Babepedia uses the most unflattering photo for her profile photo, c'mon!? 🙄

Posted by Teagan on Sukki T2025-06-03 05:02

She also has a threads account ( https://www.threads.com/@millietanaman ).

Posted by Teagan on Millie Tanaman2025-05-31 03:42

From Cancer on 17 Jun 2015 (aged 56) in Rimrock, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA

Posted by Teagan on Lynn McCrossin2023-05-07 06:06

Is she the same girl named "Liana B" in two solo pool scene under Club Seventeen??🤔

Posted by Teagan on Liana2023-05-06 03:27