She looks very much the same; if anything her arms look slimmer than they have in a while. Not a fan of hers at all, but this seems like pretty consistent for her
She looks very much the same; if anything her arms look slimmer than they have in a while. Not a fan of hers at all, but this seems like pretty consistent for her
She looks very much the same; if anything her arms look slimmer than they have in a while. Not a fan of hers at all, but this seems like pretty consistent for her
Honestly what bothers me the most of this picture is not her body or her outfit, it's her face. I want to smack her in the face and put her upper lip back to its place.
She looks like Psyduck. Something about her just looks "dumb"I noticed it looking weird too, but I think that might just be her face? Not much one can do about that.
She looks like Psyduck. Something about her just looks "dumb"
Not to mention posing like a 13yo on MySpace and saying stupid sentences like “I love pasta and being greased up in olive oil more than life itself!”Her face doesn't help, but I think it's mainly the perpetually empty gaze that makes her look dumb.
TakedownsMove this to Celebrities/Online (or Takedowns)?
pretty sure emily doesn't even know what the word 'fundamental' means, let alone this fake/ignorant a$$ "feminism" she talks about to veil her vacuous existence of taking clothes off & shooting selfies. to say people are only attractive if they have hair & define themselves by it is just sending a moronic message to the general public. instead of using her platform for something positive she goes & does thisCaption
View attachment 20756
Just a few comments:
View attachment 20759 View attachment 20760
A bloggers thoughts:
View attachment 20755
I'm actually more annoyed by the posters who felt the need to get super offended and vocal here. She's not wrong. Hair is, in fact, a huge part of our look and identity - I remember having to do practice auditions/interviews in college, and one of the things that stuck is that first impressions are largely shaped by a person's hair - I think because its color, length and style can affect someone's look so drastically.Caption
View attachment 20756
Just a few comments:
View attachment 20759 View attachment 20760
A bloggers thoughts:
View attachment 20755
You entirely missed the point.I'm actually more annoyed by the posters who felt the need to get super offended and vocal here. She's not wrong. Hair is, in fact, a huge part of our look and identity - I remember having to do practice auditions/interviews in college, and one of the things that stuck is that first impressions are largely shaped by a person's hair - I think because its color, length and style can affect someone's look so drastically.
And the cancer comments - losing your hair after treatments is something a lot of people with cancer are afraid of; many experience a lot of insecurity about it and spend a lot on wigs, sometimes friends and family shave their heads in solidarity...the absence of hair is indeed a serious part of your identity at that point.
Hair means a lot to us. This looks like a not-particularly-creative person getting a contract with a haircare brand, posting the best suck-up caption her brain could imagine (lol) and the Internet offense machine making a mountain out of a molehill because they don't have anything better to do. =/
That's fair enough. I just reread my post and realized I didn't make it perfectly clear that the posters who annoyed me were all in the screenshots - the IG comments, etc - I didn't mean any of you in any way. There's a huge, huge difference between public comments intended as a takedown in front of the whole world and critiquing people in a private forum, especially since a lot of bloggers/ commenters have realized that a good way to get lots of likes/ retweets/ reposts/ clicks is to pounce on a famous person who's done something dumb, find the best way to take the most offense possible, and reap the rewards of fleeting Internet attention.You entirely missed the point.
You are absolutely welcome to have your own opinion, but expect to receive backlash for comments like this. @espressoenthusiast could have a field day with you on your comment
https://www.vogue.com/article/emily...pJobID=1164049335&spReportId=MTE2NDA0OTMzNQS2 had no idea she even had a boyfriend
From there to "omg how could you not think about people with cancer!" is a huge leap that looks like they're trying to be offended.
spot on and exactly what I hink..especially the last sentence.Ugh this. Hair and boobs are badges of femininity for a lot of women, both cis and trans - whether or not they should be is definitely up for debate. A lot of people do ascribe meaning to hair.
Is her statement stupid and shallow and exclusionary? Of course. But does anyone honestly expect Birdbrain McLookAtMyPastaTitties to express these ideas thoughtfully? I'm not saying we need to give the statement a pass, but I think the Internet needs to recalibrate the outrage settings, because [vapid pornstar not thinking about subset of population w/o hair] needs to merit a different level of heat than [actual elected politicians arguing that babies can't be conceived from rape].