>>376683
This
>>376373 was the gif above that I was referring to. It doesn't appear to have been originally posted by you, and so naturally I am skeptical as to how this unrelated post is also, coincidentally, hulksgf.
If it isn't hulksgf, I will reiterate again here that I also second the request for an ID on the woman in the gif. To me, it just looks like a looped clip from a typical one-off homemade/cell phone video uploaded to one of the tube sites when they were still good. The original source video is probably still floating around somewhere out there...
I am happy to be proven wrong, though, if it is hulksgf.