15 thoughts on “Love Advent 2017 – Day 3: Emily Ratajkowski

  1. Carcinogen

    To those calling her a butterface,
    She is not. I have seen MUCH worse faces on bodies than her. In fact, she has quite a nice face. “Butterface” has been diminished from something meaning a beautiful body with a bad face to a boring meme. Please use it for the right context.
    From,
    Someone who thinks words should mean something

    Reply
    1. Linguist

      I could not agree more with you from a linguistic standpoint. However, precisely because of that, I have to say that Ratakowski is the axiomatically correct definition of the word “butterface”.

      Calling her face pretty is like calling Ashley Graham “thin”. Both would require a re-writing of the dictionary to be correct.

      Reply
  2. Lester the molester

    “Too ugly, would not bang.”

    As he finishes typing, he brushes his hair out of his eyes. His fedora is tipped to an appropriate level. Anon tries to get up but cannot lift himself. He has not showered in weeks.

    Reply
  3. ozz969

    I think Emily is hot, and agree with Carcinogen that she is no “butterface” but that I guess is a matter of opinion. I don’t care for this photo shoot, food is for eating. Even big-titty food network goddess Giada DeLaurentiis tried a “roll around in tomato sauce” photoshoot for Esquire and couldn’t pull it off (but she did show a lot of beautiful cleavage).

    Reply
  4. Doug

    I think I know why shes just playing with the food and even making it unedible, its her way of saying fuck y’all haters for calling me a butterface, you wanted this food? Well Imma ruin it for you

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *