Where?I can’t be the only one who sees the lazy eye
I can't see it and it makes me worried now haha. All I see is lack of fake lashes...
Where?I can’t be the only one who sees the lazy eye
Spot the differenceView attachment 115260
I just saw this image appear on my Instagram. We’ve been aware of how classless she is but I can’t get over how stupid looking she is.
I hate it here
Idk what I find more insufferable, her appearance or the fact that she’s acting as if she wrote The Second Sex of our generation or somethingSpot the difference
View attachment 115278
Agree, but the article is actually not too bad apart from the fact that Emrata is stylised as the perfect looking, but the author also draws attention to the conflicting statements about her complaining about the industry while exploiting it at the same time.I have neither the time nor a single iota of inclination to read a single word of this "article" but I think even the masses must find a headline like this yawn inducing: Emily Ratajkowski and the Burden of Being Perfect-Looking.
I understand that it's aiming to be "tongue in cheek" insofar as it's saying "Oh no, how difficult it is to be so beautiful! What a burden!" (though a skim just now seems to indicate that the author cedes ground to some of Emrata's claims).Agree, but the article is actually not too bad apart from the fact that Emrata is stylised as the perfect looking, but the author also draws attention to the conflicting statements about her complaining about the industry while exploiting it at the same time.
But what about the rare women who are those physical ideals, the women born with the supernatural beauty to which others aspire?... This is the position from which Emily Ratajkowski, the model and entrepreneur, writes.
I absolutely understand what you are saying about the existence of the conversation at all and while I think the author is not as stupid as Emrata, in hindsight I agree it was probably a waste of time reading the article and I should spend my time differently off to my desk now and reading articles for my thesisI understand that it's aiming to be "tongue in cheek" insofar as it's saying "Oh no, how difficult it is to be so beautiful! What a burden!" (though a skim just now seems to indicate that the author cedes ground to some of Emrata's claims).
My absolute eye roll is more at the existence of the whole conversation at all and its framing... Both the people saying 'oh no, beauty actually does have its burdens!' in a genuine way and people saying 'beautiful people have to shut up!' are just taking her claim to being cursed with beauty at alll and dissecting it with such anxiety without actually... looking at her and seeing the obvious? It's so amazingly oblivious, navel-gazey and ultimately neurotic that I might almost appreciate it as performance art if the whole thing wasn't so trashy.
I have neither the time nor a single iota of inclination to read a single word of this "article" but I think even the masses must find a headline like this yawn inducing: Emily Ratajkowski and the Burden of Being Perfect-Looking.
I have neither the time nor a single iota of inclination to read a single word of this "article" but I think even the masses must find a headline like this yawn inducing: Emily Ratajkowski and the Burden of Being Perfect-Looking.
*below average lolGirls who complain about the tribulations of being too beautiful are usually painstakingly average and delusional
(It also makes one shudder to think of just how powerless the models who don’t have Ratajkowski’s platform are. Ratajkowski seldom seems to consider these women.)
I thought about this and felt the same as you at first and not to be pedantic, but I think there are subtle differences between "looking perfect" and "being perfect-looking" -- the former can mean they only seem perfect, and the latter sounds more long standing. But in general The New Yorker can be incredibly wordy and pompous especially with the way they stylize words like teen-ager, coöperate, and reëlectDidn’t read the article but the title alone annoys me greatly. And not just because it’s so nauseating. It’s poorly written. “The burden of being perfect looking”. Argh. It really should say “the burden of looking perfect” (or even “the burden of being beautiful”). Or better yet, “The burden of being an idiot”.
As much as she alludes to being in control, Ratajkowski seems incapable of making a decision that doesn’t actively reinforce the things that make her feel bad. She confesses to still being “addicted” to the sensation of being loved on Instagram. Of course, all of these contradictions are valid, and the questions she poses are meaningful ones, but Ratajkowski often fails to cut through them with insight.
Haven't finished the article yet and not sure if I will, but I do like that the author seems to make jabs at Emily here and there.
I thought about this and felt the same as you at first and not to be pedantic, but I think there are subtle differences between "looking perfect" and "being perfect-looking" -- the former can mean they only seem perfect, and the latter sounds more long standing. But in general The New Yorker can be incredibly wordy and pompous especially with the way they stylize words like teen-ager, coöperate, and reëlect
View attachment 115693This caption is so embarrassing!
Oh please, I saw other pictures from the event and her abs weren’t as dramatic as the two pictures she chose to post. She likes the controversy and attention. But sure, how braveView attachment 115693This caption is so embarrassing!