AMEN!

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.

Hepburn>>>>Monroe

True that

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

this looks shit too

but how do you explain the popularity of Twiggy, like, 15 years later?

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

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!

MM actually weighed 118 lbs at 5'-5". She was skinny. No idea where the fat cow illusion comes from

>No idea where the fat cow illusion comes from
It comes from fat cows.

>118
>5'5"
>skinny
are you a chubby chaser, by any chance? or just an idiot who calls women who are overweight skinny because you lack perception?

>bmi 19.6

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.

>trust bmi numbers over your own eyes
lovin' every laugh

>not understanding what constitutes chubby

>being American

You a chubby girl whose trying to maintain that she's chubby or what...?

>a woman who isn't visible overweight isn't overweight because I quoted a bmi number
epic. enjoy your lack of perception

>that one guy who butts into the middle of a conversation without reading it and ends up looking like a retard
yikes

That's fucking scary, brehs. I hate looking at Asians now, but is this what awaits me?

who IS visibly overweight*
>inb4 100 replies of nonsense because of a typo

It can happen to you at any time.

Kind of sounds like it cause you're all anti-BMI like most fat girls. What do you consider skinny if not someone with a 22" waist and large boobs/butt?

>overweight
>over a weight
>over a weight range
>over a weight range for their height
>bmi

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?

Fat girls on suicide watch

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

>What who cares if I look fat this number scientifically proves I'm not fat!

I did and you still sound like an insecure chubby girl.

Here's a more flattering one for you since you don't know how to google and had to base your entire opinion on OP's chubby girl fandom picture.

You're not saying anything of substance with your posts and I'm well aware she's fat I didn't need a second angle

fat logic b8

Shes no where near the hottest girl ever reminder to everyone bitch killed herself top lel

>t. roastie

idiot

Yeah, you're mad, roastie.

yeah and marilyn abused the hell out of barbs, should all aspiring women do that too?

yeah why else would you love a woman unless they were gorgeous? They die earlier because of it who cares you get a younger one. what the fuck is wrong with you retard

> bmi
> using a meme metric for attractiveness

If you're looking at a woman's body the only four numbers that matter are bust, waist, hips, and body fat percentage

so am I supposed to see a difference between the 2 pictures?

don't you get it bro? photoshop is a magic tool that can make ugly girls pretty. BEHOLD!

now go forth and say "muh photoshop" everytime someone claims a super model is pretty

Plz go fatty.
Unless you're here to improve yourself.
You can shitpost your useless stuff on tumbl or reddit already.

Nice thumbnail, faggot.

37 bust
25 waist
36 hip

BF around 18-20

How am I doing?

Here you go hombre

>no height
>no weight
>no pic
you're fat

>mfw another retard doesn't read the conversation and humiliates himself in public
epic

5'3 and 113lbs brah

You think Im gonna post a picture of myself on Veeky Forums?

booty

I thought you said those were the only numbers that mattered? Looks like measurements alone dont cut it

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

I wasn't that guy, but
>implying you couldn't tell with just those numbers anyway

Audrey shits on her

>Audrey Hepburn
Not fair

>elvish ears
>short hair
disgusting

Sorry you have shit taste

>not seeing those as positives
lmao

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

People probably are fatter on average, but people are also taller on average. Doesn't make your pic wrong, it just oversimplifies.

Not him but if you need a magnifying glass just to see what's been done it's PREEEEEETY safe to say it's not as big a deal as that guy was making it out to be

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.

Neither is the original.

BMI is a bad indicator if you aren't a woman and/or dyel.

But yeah for most women BMI works pretty well.

...

>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

No balls pussy cunt go fucking die

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.

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

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

...

But also, that model is notorious for editing some other aspects of herself
>pic related

>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.

Really?

it takes attractive people and makes them flawless.

like what the fuck are you retarded or do you honestly believe this doesn't happen.

take a 7 and make them a 10.

brehs

>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

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

yeah, you can.

look at candid photos of models and compare to a photoshoot.

they trim the nose, expand the jawline, highlight cheekbones, fatten lips, make eyes smaller, increase brow size, increase hairline, increase tits, shrink waist, increase hips, add bulge in underwear.

remove flaws in skin, remove bags under eyes, the list goes on and on and on and on.

then you probably already forgot about lighting and makeup.

jesus bro how new to life are you.

> tt-tthey don't do that .. theet--tehe magazines don't lie!

well how dumb do you feel now

How many makeup tutorials are there online/collages where they show average women BEFORE makeup and then AFTER and its like a 5/10 gone to a 9/10.

But no man, you're right, it never happens. Lmao.

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?

I can make a 10 out of a 7 just with makeup. Give me photoshop and I can make a 10 out of a 5.

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

no you can't and it can never be done. you'll make her look like a monster if you actually tried

>The left
Is that the Adoring Fan???

>needs a magnifying glass to even see a difference
See 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.

Lmao yeah ok.

My thanks to the highschooler trying to lecture others on how makeup works despite having not even kissed a girl yet in all likelihood.

Gl with your algebra final.

Likewise except it's brown skin girls for me - while white girls can be hot, brown skin girls are just beautiful

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!"

there's no point in arguing this with you

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?

you said absolutely nothing in your post

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

google -> women with and without makeup

cue 90000 links with the exact shit we're talking about

google -> [model name] then compare with [model name candid] image search results.

pick any model, supermodel, model, pornstar, anything.

youtube -> makeup tutorials.

have fun.

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

i'm sayin women can completely recontour their faces with makeup.

im sayin intelligent lighting can highlight and hide facial characteristics

im sayin video editing software lets you remodel faces.

you're not getting specific links because you're asking for somebody to draw you a picture of gravity.

can somebody draw me a picture of a warm breeze, please?

cunt just go to fucking google and look up any makeup guide.

if you're actually a male past the age of 16 you know this, this is why nobody is agreeing with you in this thread, this is why nobody is engaging your points, this is is why you're being dismissed.

this is like arguing that women can be less logical than men, and that men can be less emotional than women.

it's an understood fucking phenomenon.

>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?

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

>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

the kennedys had her killed