Post: #51

(05-06-2012 06:20 PM)_DC_ Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 02:10 PM)kdolo Wrote:  Kate Upton is an example of what I call the "Lump of Coal Theory".

The media elites love to take a lump of coal - give it publicity and airtime in order to convince us that the coal is a diamond. They do this in order to test how powerful their manipulation machine is on the public. ... "can we make this girl famous and make the American public buy it ????"

Kate Upton is nothing more than your run of the mill white chick - dime a dozen in certain parts of the MidWest or SEC schools. - maybe a bit taller with big tits.

She's ok, certainly bangable ....but by no means any better than a 7. and this is all done up with lighting and cameras. Shes probably a 5-6 normally.

If she is "run of the mill" I'd like to know what midwest school you're talking about. I went to a Big Ten University, and she would certainly be better than "run of the mill".

For those complaining she has no butt, I don't see a problem here:

Would bang both

Post: #52

I smell a lot of virgins posting on this thread...

Post: #53

theres no question would bang but not a huge fan of her face...don't think she deserves all the hype she gets...infinitely hotter girls getting way less pub...chubby on top of it. I'm talking in the realm of celebs...I love what the victorias secret people had to say about her, her looks obvious, a page 3 girl at best...hardly supermodel material.

Post: #54

It is simple maths guys.

She isn't as hot as Olivia Munn, and her boobs aren't as big as Christina Hendricks. She also has a funny mole thing.

So they are both 5 out of ten, which we all decided. Therefore, the SCIENTIFIC and MATHEMATICAL conclusion is

2/10 would not bang.

Post: #55

I think part of the problem is the "supermodel" tag. The generation of true supermodels has long passed. The last class was Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Stephanie Seymour and oddly enough, Linda Evangelista, who's in the news today. She's suing Francois-Henri Pinault, the fashion executive, for child support for their 5 year old son Augustine (I just saw that they settled the case today). This is the same guy that married and knocked up Salma Hayek. She was seeking a NY record $46,000 a week to pay for a 24 hour nanny, armed security, a driver and other expenses for the little guy (this is the figure she stated she was paying). Apparently he had been trying for some time to pay her child support, but she refused, insisting on suing him instead because he's a billionaire, and she knew she could get more that way. The kid is a result of a 4 month fling, of which Pinault says they were only together physically for about 7 days over those 4 months. Until recently she was the face of some cosmetics line, but doesn't have the gig anymore (which is probably why she's suing now). It's actually because of Evangelista that "supermodel" fees started getting balked at by designers for runway shows. This bitch famously was quoted as saying "I don't get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day." After that, they started booking more less-known models to walk in shows.

I think now, as soon as a girl gets into a couple of magazines, or makes it into the SI Swimsuit Issue, and becomes a little popular she gets labeled a supermodel. Many of these girls are at least cute, and many are actually very attractive. But most aren't truly SPECIAL, at least not the more fashion/runway types. The girls that do Victorias and swimsuits are more my speed, because they're actually built like women. You need some curves for swimsuits and underwear.

Post: #56

(05-07-2012 06:22 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I think part of the problem is the "supermodel" tag. The generation of true supermodels has long passed. The last class was Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Stephanie Seymour and oddly enough, Linda Evangelista, who's in the news today. She's suing Francois-Henri Pinault, the fashion executive, for child support for their 5 year old son Augustine (I just saw that they settled the case today). This is the same guy that married and knocked up Salma Hayek. She was seeking a NY record $46,000 a week to pay for a 24 hour nanny, armed security, a driver and other expenses for the little guy (this is the figure she stated she was paying). Apparently he had been trying for some time to pay her child support, but she refused, insisting on suing him instead because he's a billionaire, and she knew she could get more that way. The kid is a result of a 4 month fling, of which Pinault says they were only together physically for about 7 days over those 4 months. Until recently she was the face of some cosmetics line, but doesn't have the gig anymore (which is probably why she's suing now). It's actually because of Evangelista that "supermodel" fees started getting balked at by designers for runway shows. This bitch famously was quoted as saying "I don't get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day." After that, they started booking more less-known models to walk in shows.

I think now, as soon as a girl gets into a couple of magazines, or makes it into the SI Swimsuit Issue, and becomes a little popular she gets labeled a supermodel. Many of these girls are at least cute, and many are actually very attractive. But most aren't truly SPECIAL, at least not the more fashion/runway types. The girls that do Victorias and swimsuits are more my speed, because they're actually built like women. You need some curves for swimsuits and underwear.

agreed the supermodel days are gone...I'm just saying of the well known models which tend to be victorias secret or SI girls...give me Swanopel, Rafelli, Shayk anyday before upton, they make her look like a troll.

Post: #57

(05-02-2012 05:46 PM)Caligula Wrote:  On a side note, Terry Richardson has it made with a constant stream of young hotties. He's faced all sorts of sexual complaints and a Jizzabel hate campaign, but none of the noise has affected him professionally - nor by the looks of it his access to young poon. A true player. Love his work too.

Looked up this Terry Richardson guy. Straight boss! You can tell with all the feminists getting their panties twisted up in a bunch.

http://jezebel.com/5494634/meet-terry-ri...otographer

Post: #58

(05-07-2012 10:25 PM)JofSuperman Wrote:  

(05-02-2012 05:46 PM)Caligula Wrote:  On a side note, Terry Richardson has it made with a constant stream of young hotties. He's faced all sorts of sexual complaints and a Jizzabel hate campaign, but none of the noise has affected him professionally - nor by the looks of it his access to young poon. A true player. Love his work too.

Looked up this Terry Richardson guy. Straight boss! You can tell with all the feminists getting their panties twisted up in a bunch.

http://jezebel.com/5494634/meet-terry-ri...otographer

The industry is full of guys like this - it's something the girls have to chalk up as part of the cost of doing business. It seems photogs are at opposite ends of the spectrum - they're either horndog types, or gay guys, with a couple of prominent women thrown in. As a straight man in that world, constantly surrounded by women in various stages of undress or simply nude, how can you NOT be trying to get pussy all the time?

Post: #59

hahahah that "jamie peck" girl coming forward about the dick touching goes to my school. Figures, feminism is the law of the land.

Post: #60

Im surprised at the direction this thread went in..

Post: #61

I'll see your Kate Upton and raise you Keeley Hazell

Chef In Jeans
A culinary website for men

Post: #62

Keeley Hazall is as close as you can get to a perfect 10.

Post: #63

(05-10-2012 04:51 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  Keeley Hazall is as close as you can get to a perfect 10.

Scorching hot, of course, but another weak-in-the-ass babe. You must have strong showings in tits, face, and ass to be in the running for a Perfect 10, man. The word "perfect" should not be tossed around lightly.

You guys have to triangulate the ass™ before making these bold declarations.

--Tuthmosis, Ass Detective

   

   

Post: #64

"It's no mystery that ass has always been tits' greatest enemy. It's almost like a Muslim-Jewish thing, but with tits and ass."
-Kenny Powers

Post: #65

So true, one of the girls I've been banging has the nicest ass, hitting it from behind and reverse cowgirl are amazing, but her tits are super small. However, I am more an ass man myself. Nothing worse than flipping a girl over and seeing nothing where her ass should be.

Post: #66

The reason we like tits is because they look like ass cheeks, and this ass is runway to the pussy.

It's like flowers that develop all those visual cues that guide the bugs to pollination.

So, ass is superior to tits.

Post: #67

To me ass and titties both are awesome. They're just as great as each other. I could never say one is better than the other. That would be like trying to choose between your kids. (I don't have kids but I can imagine)

I don't like looking at stick thin girls. I'll still bang them obviously but give me a 36-24-38 and I'll be smiling for days.

Post: #68

With tits there is always room for error or false advertising. Push up bras, bras that add a cup size. Sometimes girls have weird nipples, floppy tits, or they're really far apart. A good ass is just a good ass. It is black and white. Its either DAT ASS or a flat ass.

Post: #69

I'd go for the good ass flat tits over big tits with no ass any day. At least the former has less of a chance of falling over on her face.

Post: #70

(05-12-2012 08:16 PM)soup Wrote:  The reason we like tits is because they look like ass cheeks, and this ass is runway to the pussy.

It's like flowers that develop all those visual cues that guide the bugs to pollination.

So, ass is superior to tits.

I figured because our offspring will need to breastfeed from their mother, and therefore we are attracted to big healthy breasts.

Post: #71

(05-03-2012 02:21 AM)wolf Wrote:  That's what's wrong with America. Here I am, but you ain't getting any. All the guys are getting teased but nobody is getting any.

Right.

The key motivation behind this exhibitionism is that "Hey, guys, I fuck, but I won't ever fuck YOU!"

It's further evidence, if any more were needed, that lizards in general, and really good looking lizards in particular, are really a lower life form.

Post: #72

(05-13-2012 11:27 AM)RandalGraves Wrote:  

(05-12-2012 08:16 PM)soup Wrote:  The reason we like tits is because they look like ass cheeks, and this ass is runway to the pussy.

It's like flowers that develop all those visual cues that guide the bugs to pollination.

So, ass is superior to tits.

I figured because our offspring will need to breastfeed from their mother, and therefore we are attracted to big healthy breasts.

That's a lot more biologically accurate.


EDIT: the longer I try out this whole noporn/nomasturbation thing, the better this video gets.

Post: #73

(05-13-2012 11:27 AM)RandalGraves Wrote:  

(05-12-2012 08:16 PM)soup Wrote:  The reason we like tits is because they look like ass cheeks, and this ass is runway to the pussy.

It's like flowers that develop all those visual cues that guide the bugs to pollination.

So, ass is superior to tits.

I figured because our offspring will need to breastfeed from their mother, and therefore we are attracted to big healthy breasts.

Firm supple breasts (decent size, but not a lot of sag) are a very good indicator of fertility. That is why men are into them as well as toned legs, good wrinkle-free skin, long healthy hair, full bright lips, hourglass figures, and other fetility cues.

Beauty = fertility. There is a direct correlation. All of the things we consider beautiful on women are signs of fertility, and women who possess them are known to be more easily impregnated and more likely to bare healthy children. Hourglass figure = better chance at quick conception-this is fact

TL;DR: Nice boobs mean more babies.

Post: #74

Fair disclosure:

I've run into some evidence suggesting that Kate Upton may have ass after all. Small, but tight and nice. Plot thickens.

Granted, this could be some booty-pop trickery (the pictures above are bare ass, which makes it impossible to hide some padded underwear), but I'm just giving fair time to the other side.

   
   

Post: #75

(05-13-2012 10:47 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Fair disclosure:

I've run into some evidence suggesting that Kate Upton may have ass after all. Small, but tight and nice. Plot thickens.

Granted, this could be some booty-pop trickery (the pictures above are bare ass, which makes it impossible to hide some padded underwear), but I'm just giving fair time to the other side.

In all the pictures it just seems like a fairly average white-girl booty to me. Not particularly big, not particularly small/flat, just normal for a girl with her genetic makeup. I wouldn't rate her any more highly for it, but her butt wouldn't cost her any hotness in my eyes either. It's just kind of there.