>>37949936 >>37949957 I don't find her all that attractive either, and I like white girls just fine. I'm not saying she's ugly or that I wouldn't absolutely bang, but she's not even top 20% of girls for me. I'd give her a 7. Which is still good, but considering she has a 9/10 face, her body is pretty fucking disappointing.
>>37949997 That was 1951, actually, right when she started making a name for herself. It's just a really unflattering picture, which was chosen on purpose to hammer home the point. This is a picture from the same exact shoot, probably taken no more than a couple minutes between each other
>>37950127 It's still a better picture than the one in the OP. Her tits aren't fighting gravity as much as the first pic, and her spine is given a bit more normal position which causes less of a protruding gut. Not to mention there's an extra filter on OP pic which only accentuates the more negative points
>>37949936 That's nice, OP. However: If some woman weighs more than I do (and I'm 6'4" and currently 202lbs) and is shorter than I am, then she can't realistically expect me to find her attractive, and attempting to bully me into changing my hardwired preferences not only isn't going to work, it's going to seriously annoy me. So, to be blunt and a bit crass about it, if fatties want to be wanted, they need to get the fork out of their mouths and their bodyfat down to a realistically healthy threshold. Period. Not negotiable!
>>37950201 It's because she lived in a time before modern photo editing where pretty much all imperfection hiding had to be performed on location (either with make up or lighting), so noticing imperfections was fairly simple.
Nowadays, any idiot with a free weekend can learn photoshop and edit damn near anything to hide or alter appearances to ridiculous degrees.
>pic related Left is a photo about to be published in a magazine. Right is the same photo edited by the model and posted to social media.
>>37950326 still not reading the convo, huh? what's with you retard using numbers and words to determine what's overweight over what can be seen with your own eyes? >22" waist large boobs/butt first off none of that means a damn thing if she's still visibly fat. second, your numbers are wrong and large boobs/butt is pointless when we have photos. why bother posting such lazy nonsense?
>>37950374 you don't need bmi to tell you when someone is carrying excess weight, and you most CERTAINLY should not use bmi numbers over your own powers of perception. you're actually going to sit here and call a woman with a beer gut and thunder thighs "skinny" because of a number you got online instead of opening your eyes to the fat girl in front of you. hilarious
>>37950814 if you want an accurate evaluation you would, but if you want to attention whore your stats that clearly indicate you being overweight so that the chubby chasing "high test" memers can say you're pretty then be my guest
>>37950738 There are several differences, bro. The right has >smaller nose >softer, slightly inflated lips >softer chin >bigger tits >much more concave waist >bigger hips/butt >smaller left wrist (though this is probably a result of making the butt bigger)
Notice all the blurring around these areas, and the widened gap between the side of the torso and the left arm
>>37950967 I thought the point he was trying to make is that, as he said, anyone with photoshop can edit photos semi-perfectly. Left is the magazine version, edited by a professional and right is just the one the dumb model edited herself to post on social media.
>>37950987 >Nowadays, any idiot with a free weekend can learn photoshop and edit damn near anything to hide or alter appearances to ridiculous degrees. I don't know how you can misread someone's post so badly but his point was NOT that photoshop was simply easy to use
There's literal obese fuckers on here with the balls to do that but you're too much of a wannabe badass bitch who actually got raped by her daddy then called fat because she was 300 lbs to do what they did.
>>37950967 I was just pointing out what I could see. The main parts were the enhanced bust and butt and fucked up waist. The point of that post editing is so commonplace and easy to do (though not necessarily in a believable way) on a non-professional level, that it creates both inflated standards and extreme reactionary responses to counter such standards
>>37951016 you post all that like there's this great big differeence between the photos and how a pixel more on someone's ass is having this huge societal affect like that butterfly that died in A Sound of Thunder. it's nothing of the kind, you can barely make out a difference
>>37950967 >>37951016 But also, that model is notorious for editing some other aspects of herself >pic related
>>37951035 >how a pixel more on someone's ass is having this huge societal affect It's adding inches to her frame and creating a significantly different look, and that's at least the 2nd time the pic has been edited. The pic itself doesn't need to be the source of some outward ripple effect, it's a result of it.
I'm not supporting the whole "muh marilyn curves" retards, but there is something fucky when it comes to the several levels of editing being done.
>>37951070 >significantly different look >needs a magnifying glass to even see a difference the only thing "fucky" is that so small a change is making you think it's such a big deal. at best they just made her uglier and the picture weirder looking and at worst they're doing not much at all
>>37951080 you can't take a 7 and make them a 10 that's a myth. that never happens wanna know why? because you can't just tinker around in photoshop nipping someones chin here or adding a pixel to their breast there, and expect all to work and not look worse than normal
>>37951116 I am fully aware of what they do in photoshop I'm telling you it isn't magic that can make someone look better. I have seen the candid photos too, what do you think I'm using as a frame of reference here? have you ever seen a girl in real life?
>>37951124 makeup and photoshop are different I shouldn't have to tell you and that's another conversation altogether which I'm willing to have if you'd like because it's also a myth that makeup can make an ugly girl pretty. you people act like powder can turn a goblin into a goddess or an average girl into a beauty queen when that's not how it works. go outside some time
>>37951132 no you can't and it can never be done. you'll make her look like a monster if you actually tried
If you need a magnifying glass to see the difference in build, then you need to get your eyes examined
>at best they just made her uglier and the picture weirder looking and at worst they're doing not much at all What "they" are you talking about? The magazines? I'm talking about how the magazines' original impacts have brought us to the individuals editing the photos themselves to suit the standards, despite the photos ALREADY being edited to suit publishing standards in the first place.
>>37951145 I could link you thousands of makeup before/afters of 5 to 9 transformations, but this is pointless. You would just keep saying "lol no bruh look how imperfect she is, she's definitely still a 5!"
>>37951160 you need a gif to even see, and once you compare the two they're about the same quality, with the normal one even looking better than the more heavily edited one
>what they are you talking about editors of photos. you're just saying it's being edited more, what's your point? whether it's one person doing all the editing of the final product or 2 guys splitting the duty what's the difference?
>>37951162 you said absolutely nothing in your post
>>37951171 you could link me images that would illustrate your lack of perception. it's impossible to gain that much beauty just from makeup or photoshop, it simply cannot be done and it's a myth that it can. there isn't a single case of it ever happening. you wont post such pics, because it will show everyone here how little you understand what you're talking about. like I said, go outside some time and look at women. makeup isn't fooling anybody
Fucks sake just go and look at photos of Marilyn in 1949-1950, when she was in much better shape. Go watch asphalt jungle and realize that at the peak of her attractiveness she wasn't even remotely chubby
>>37951220 I've seen women with and without makeup before. how do you think I came to my conclusions? you're saying you have access to magical photos where makeup made an ugly girl into a beautiful princess. those are the ones I'm interested in, because I've never before seen such a thing. but you wont show them, because you know there are no such pictures and no such transformation is possible with makeup because it's just powder, not fairy dust
>>37951203 >you need a gif to even see No you don't, you just need the basic capability to notice when two similar pictures have obvious differences in them.
>you're just saying it's being edited more, what's your point? whether it's one person doing all the editing of the final product or 2 guys splitting the duty what's the difference? Ok, now you're confirmed retarded. If the latter pic was going to the magazine for publication, then you'd have a point, but it's not and you don't.
The first pic is the one going to the magazine. It's already been edited to the point where everyone involved with the magazine is happy with the publication standards it meets.
The second pic is an edit of the first pic, edited and distributed by the model involved on their social media profiles.
Now why would someone edit a picture that was good enough for magazine publication standards? Probably because the standards of the model have been impacted by the editing standards of magazine's past. And if a professional model's standards have been altered by magazine editing practices, does it not stand to reason that girls who consume this kind of media don't also have their standards impacted as well?
>>37951267 I'm well aware of what people can do with makeup. is there some cheek elevation that's supposed to make a 5 a 9 regardless of the rest of her features? is there some shadowing that can be done to a girls eyes that will hide the rest of her ugly fucking face? no there isn't. I'm not asking you to show me a picture of gravity, I'm asking you to show me what you think a 4 point increase in looks actually looks like so we can all laugh at you when you show us a pig in a wig
>>37951270 >No you don't, you just need the basic capability to notice when two similar pictures have obvious differences in them which were nearly imperceptible in static picture form. you are just repeating what I said and what we already know
>Now why would someone edit a picture that was good enough for magazine publication standards? Probably because the standards of the model have been impacted by the editing standards of magazine's past. And if a professional model's standards have been altered by magazine editing practices, does it not stand to reason that girls who consume this kind of media don't also have their standards impacted as well? you're overstepping big time here and using more imagination than reason. 1) we don't know if she runs her instagram herself, many professionals have social media guys who upload shit if not all the time than some of the time 2) we don't know if it was her who edited it even if she did post it 3) there's no reason to think her standards have changed even if she did edit it 4) it does not stand to reason because for one we don't know if her standards even did change for the reasons above, nor can we conclude it wouldn't be simply an affect of her working in that industry even if they did
>>37951336 >which were nearly imperceptible in static picture form. No, they were imperceptible to you. At least two other people ITT got it (including the one that made the animated picture).
>1) we don't know if she runs her instagram herself, many professionals have social media guys who upload shit if not all the time than some of the time She does. Her instagram and tumblr accounts predates her professional work by a few years at least, and she has changed representing agencies too frequently in the past year (3 times by my count) to have that shit reasonably managed by some company.
>2) we don't know if it was her who edited it even if she did post it She posted it to her own tumblr page (see pic). She may not have edited it herself (though there is evidence of her posting edited versions of previously edited photos prior to this), but it is sourced to an original post on her tumblr account.
>3) there's no reason to think her standards have changed even if she did edit it I never said changed, I said impacted. Changed implies that she had a different set of standards at a certain point. Impacted can mean that during the development of those personal standards, the media consumed had an effect on the current outcome.
>nor can we conclude it wouldn't be simply an affect of her working in that industry even if they did Except it's not just an effect of her current work in the industry, otherwise the content would be inline with the standards of the magazine itself (e.g. if she was going along with the current industry standards, she'd be sharing the pic in the way that it is being published, not the way it is now).
>>37951472 I just find it funny because 5 months ago, it was a big deal because she was the cover model for the first issue of Playboy after they decided to stop the nude modeling. Oops http://imgbox.com/Tlk2mGQU
>>37949957 >>37950312 I don't find asian girls as attractive as i thought they were back when i was in high school. I went to school with so many asians it was normal to have yellow fever, but once college came around i noticed how flat and featureless most of their faces were compared to other chicks.
>>37951741 Those girls look like a fart aimed at their general direction would knock them over and the only people intimidated by them are basement-dwelling neckbears brainwashed by cartoons for little children.
From when she was at her absolute largest size, Marilyn Monroe's dresses are too small to zip up on a size zero manequin. Fatty Monroe is a meme that Tumblerinas use to convince themselves that flubber = curves.
>>37952069 you can't really think your little Road House instagram filter is fooling anyone or fundamentally changing what you look like in your photos, can you? people like you are the reason fortune tellers are still a thing
>>37952083 Every girl I know has an actual app for editing pictures on their phones and it makes a whole lot of a difference. Clear skin, no stretchmarks, no cellulite, slimming down certain body parts and making others bigger... Favorable lighting, posing and editing can make all the difference, believe it or not.
>>37952172 editing pictures is different than a filter, even then those piddly little edits don't amount to very much in the way of tricking people. they see the little scrubs or the fuzzy bits or the weird angle and just think "oh she's hiding something" however you look is as good as you're gonna look in a photo, sweety
>>37951645 I also went to grew up around Asians (my the end of high school, I was one of the few white people in AP classes) and have an easier time befriending Asian Americans and FOBs than white people in general.
As a result, about half the women I've dated are Asian and some people have accused me of being "into" Asian girls even now when I'm well out of high school, but well over half my friends are Asian. It's just the default for me.
Also this is before easily accessible nutritional and portion knowledge, supplements, wide spread gyms, googling what to do for your body type, etc. I'm pretty sure she was also on anti-depressants or psychotics as she was bipolar, so that'll fuck up anyone's gainz real quick.
>>37952954 except thats not the standard and they do that because they're ugly cunts and want to look better. I've seen many women with 10 min to no makeup still look amazing. If men could wear makeup they would too but they cant.
>>37952995 the point is makeup isn;t the standard, they can not wear makeup and still be desirable, they do it because they want to bump up their attractiveness, like a man wearing a nice shirt or watch. This is actually a bonus for them as we are not allowed to wear makeup > but I'd say most attractive women spend time in the gym as well. lmao >I have no problem with being a man. neither do I, but I get tired of lazy women that complain how hard it is being a woman, especially when the topic of beauty standards on weight comes up. >pic related the woman had to do nothing except fork put downs (controlling appetite isn't even hard) while the two male actors had to diet AND workout for multiple years for the role.
>>37953036 Most women with office jobs wear makeup. I'm no saying that they're oppressed or anything; as far as I can tell it's other women who enforce this shit on themselves.
You can tell the difference between a skinny woman who doesn't work out and one who does just by looking at them and feeling them.
I guess since I spend time on /fit/ and none of my friends in real life complain about beauty standards, I hear way more men complaining than women. But being a man is pretty fucking sweet so I don't really get it.
>>37951741 This kind of stuff is what keeps me grounded. At the end of the day Asian girls are usually way prettier than white girls, but white girls font require the kind of fluff asian girls do. It's all the outfits and scenarios that make them attractive (and the exotic eyes). But white women have a "stable" hotness. An 8/10 white girl is an 8/10 whether she's in church or mud wrestling. But an 8/10 Asian can drop to a 6 or rise to a 10 depending what they're doing and what outfits they are wearing.
>>37953083 if you go to a college you'll endure this shit daily, especially in your elective credits >Most women with office jobs wear makeup because they want to look better especially when theyre ugly. Meanwhile an ugly male is shit out of luck. Makeup is a PRO for women, not a CON >buh its required! I've never had a girl I was less attracted to when she wasn't wearing makeup, its not a beauty standard.
Meanwhile muscle IS a beauty standard and can swing a whole lot in desire and attractiveness
>>37953137 I'm well out of college. Makeup seems to be some sort of professional nonsense that women do, even if the job doesn't require formal clothing or if they don't look any different.
Even when I was in school, there were only a few people I knew who complained about unfair beauty standards and I just avoided those people.
I was skinny in school and my first couple years out of it, and had no problems with women who varied in shape from chubby to varsity athlete. Nowadays though I wouldn't date a girl who doesn't go to the gym. If you accept women who aren't in good shape, that's on you.
>>37953172 >manlet >live in florida my entire life >all these hispanic women are short so it doesnt matter >they're always curvy >low population of ugly native mixed mexicans >tons of beautiful non-mexican hispanics to choose from >tfw white women are obsolete fuck I love florida
>>37953172 >>37953233 Also I noticed when you go to a place with a low # of hispanics it becomes so much harder to find a qt3.14 + good personality. When I was in miami for a while it was like heaven compared to tampa bay and tampa bay still has a lot of hispanics, I cannot imagine what its like in a place up north with an even lower population, youd probably have to be chad 5.3 to even talk to one.
>>37953233 Man don't remind me. The last girl I hooked up with in florida was a high test hispanic gril that I could shoot the shit about comics and film. She's now moved in with her fat, lumbersexual hipster boyfriend.
But I think I miss her beautiful, wide smile more than her great ass
>>37953338 Come back to florida man, its a manlet paradise filled with hispanics. Beautiful cruvy women everywhere, I dont see how any other place can even compete. It's their faces that make me Hnng but the bodies are Hnng too >>37953350 Camila Caballo, come to florida and you'll be able to fuck a girl like her
>>37955609 Depends on who you ask I could never go for anything but a white girl because i dont find any other ethnicity attractive...sadly >Tfw people say azn girls love white dudes but you dont like azn chicks at all
>>37956493 >Women are very poor at picking other women to look up to Well confidence for girls is not really needed You could be the saddest piece of shit on the planet as a chick and still get laid, trust me Ive seen girls who couldnt even take getting told what to do at work without breaking down and crying get boyfriends and laid, girls with the mental stability of a bunch of rats in burning meth lab could still get laid
>>37950841 It felt great. My hands in Audrey's hair. Fingers knotted in the dark locks. My cock pumping her throat. Glans making a steady chucka-chucka-chucka as it ploughed her gag reflex... I was really into it when she slapped my leg once. Twice. Third time I let her pull up off my engorged and pulsing cock, long streamers of spit and pre-cum running between my glans and her lips.
She looked up at me through her long dark lashes, panting. "I...I can't breathe!" Audrey says. "Oh, mister, when I agreed to do this for you, I never thought...!"
"Shut up, bitch!" I grab her head and force her mouth onto my dick again. Her throat muscles close on me, working, slick and hot as any woman's pussy. "You want this movie, you'll work for it!"
Her eyes scrunch up with discomfort and tears start from the corners, making her mascara run. She looks so pretty like that... I don't know if I'll be able to hold off cumming before she puts her tongue up my ass.
It turns into a long evening. Upshot is, she gets the part.
>>37953630 >>37952920 >dat 90-60-90 meme have you ever seen a woman with those proportions? The waist drop is insane, but unless she's tall as fuck SHE'D BE FAT. We used to call those 'false magre' (thin fakes?), with all the hips and tits you want and a decent waist drop.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.