50

6/13/2012 11:39:58 PM

This is the most horrible thread ever.

6/14/2012 12:25:09 AM

Quote :

"I think I saw the girl on the left at the food truck rodeo last week. Her ass was unbelievable."

I was there as well and I'm pretty sure I know exactly who you're talking about

[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 12:36 AM. Reason : and yes, it was unbelievable]

6/14/2012 12:35:36 AM

haha how did everyone notice this lady's butt?

6/14/2012 12:44:53 AM

Now this is what we like to see...particularly on the left.

There's enough ugly in this thread to make Stevie Wonder nauseous, but every now and then, a gem like this shows up to cleanse the palate.

6/14/2012 12:54:41 AM

^^ because we're both dudes and it's not like there were that many people there

especially young, (relatively) attractive people

6/14/2012 1:03:17 AM

Suck in that pooch, honey.

6/14/2012 9:00:13 AM

i was about to say... on the left? that girl is sucking in so hard it's not even funny....

i think 321 would be my order.

1 being an actual athletic build with no sucking in.

6/14/2012 9:04:35 AM

pointy elbows, etc.

6/14/2012 9:29:28 AM

I'm digging number 2

I think she's super cute

6/14/2012 9:32:31 AM

hay tall girl, haaaaaay

6/14/2012 9:35:58 AM

^^ "she has big tits"

i won't ever call anyone cute that i can't see %40 of their face

6/14/2012 9:42:03 AM

double.


[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2012 9:42:03 AM

I like #3

[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 9:46 AM. Reason : at least we know she ain't a butter face]

6/14/2012 9:43:35 AM

Yeah I like #3, too

6/14/2012 9:45:20 AM

see I think 3 is borderline butter

but I'm not a dude

6/14/2012 9:50:01 AM

6/14/2012 9:56:27 AM

2,3,1

But seriously...they're so close it's interchangeable. I know #1 is sucking in...but even if she lets it out, I doubt it's anything substantial. #2 obviously has the tittays while #3 seems to be in the best shape of the three. They all have their better qualities. I would have no problem drawing a number out of a hat.

6/14/2012 9:57:31 AM

sucking it in? yea maybe but her stomach is still very toned

shes one of those girls that for some reason lacks a little confidence in her midriff for god knows what reason

6/14/2012 9:59:19 AM

LMAO at these comments. I know the girl on the left. She's actually in 1-2 other photos in this thread (if anyone's bored and wants to do a "where's waldo" type search). Nice girl. Works at a few fine downtown establishments

Quote :

"But seriously...they're so close it's interchangeable. I know #1 is sucking in...but even if she lets it out, I doubt it's anything substantial. #2 obviously has the tittays while #3 seems to be in the best shape of the three. They all have their better qualities. I would have no problem drawing a number out of a hat."

yes

[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM. Reason : k]

6/14/2012 10:00:22 AM

New album up..they had some kind of photo shoot. ready to see where brings the discussion...





























[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM. Reason : w]

6/14/2012 10:15:19 AM

hahaha DAT ASS

6/14/2012 10:18:35 AM

Getting really nit picky here, but thats what the internet is for, right?




#1 looks like she spends the most time in the gym. Her thighs seem to have structure, while the others are just delicious trunks of untoned human flesh. She's obviously spent some time working on her midsection, but the camera angle confuses you as to whether her obliques really are that apparent, or if she's just sucking in a relatively modest paunch. Given that both of her friends seem to be flat bellies, I'd lean toward the latter, as she's probably a bit self conscious and doesn't want to seem fat by comparison. Breasts look to be strong C's, though you wonder how much that top helps. With her glasses, we're missing her eyes, which IMO account for a solid 1.5-2 points on the overall attractiveness scale, but the rest of the package alone puts her squarely in the mid to high 8 range, as long as she doesn't have Reche Caldwell peepers.

#2 has the most potential to be a 10. Her body is borderline flawless. She looks to be ideal model height, somewhere around 5'9". Beautiful long legs that reach a good 6-8 inches above her cohorts. Deep tropical tan that looks to be natural, save for the faint white splotches on the inner half of her breasts. And talk about those breasts. Since its a head on picture, we're a little deprived of depth perception to really get a good gauge on their size, but I'd say we're dealing with solid D's. Now, one could quibble and say they don't look to be the perkiest tits around, but at this point who really gives a shit. She's an ideal physical specimen and anyone who wouldn't bang her is no friend of mine. Yes, her face is the ultimate wildcard, as nearly half of it is covered by those hideous frames. But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. 9.3

#3 is the only one we really get an unfiltered look at, and it probably does her more harm than good. Her body favors #1 moreso than #2, given their similar heights and skin tones. She's not quite as well defined, nor quite as well endowed, but there's really nothing negative to say on either of those fronts; she's just matched up against a superior physical talent. Everything looks good, but nothing stands out. You can't really find a flaw in her body, but you can't really find anything that makes you stare either. Decidedly above average, but not quite stunning. This is all in reference to her body. Her face, on the other hand, brings her down just a notch. Now, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying the girl is unattractive. I thing she's very cute and would very much like to have sex with her. But cute is not beautiful. She took the ultimate gamble and decided to show her entire grill, which I give her credit for. But she looks more like the girl who sat next to you in Econ than someone you fantasize about. Cute-not-hot girls have a built in ceiling of around 8.5. She gets a 7.9

[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM. Reason : x]

6/14/2012 10:22:10 AM

oh 1 is def rocking a push up top from Victoria's Secret

6/14/2012 10:25:38 AM

Yep, it adds 1-2 cup sizes, generally.

6/14/2012 10:26:33 AM

I'm not into blondes at all, but SF is right. #2 is the winner there. Something about #3's smile doesn't sync with her face, but she off sets the awkward face with being in shape.

#1 is just happy to be there.

6/14/2012 10:26:55 AM

#1 has best lower body Face is too covered to tell
#2 has best boobs Face is too covered to tell
#3 has best upper body and we can actually tell that her faces is cute but not OMFG hot but not FUGLY capable

6/14/2012 10:40:54 AM

well we now know not to listen to sumfoo1 when it comes to choosing pretty ladies

to say #2 doesn't have a nice upper body (not even talking boobs) is retarded

6/14/2012 10:43:51 AM

i didn't say not nice... i said not best.

1 legs are muscular 3 arms and shoulders

2 is probably the best looking of the 3... but i'm not willing to say that with the eyes completely covered and the nose perception skewed by glasses.

I know with some of my glasses my nose looks normal... and its a fucking monster.

6/14/2012 10:52:03 AM

Yeah...you can tell #2 is the least "active" of the three. She definitely relies on her breasts to do the talking and has no need to shape and tone the rest of her body. Which is fine by me.

6/14/2012 10:59:56 AM

Quote :

"Now, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying the girl is unattractive. I thing she's very cute and would very much like to have sex with her. But cute is not beautiful. She took the ultimate gamble and decided to show her entire grill, which I give her credit for. But she looks more like the girl who sat next to you in Econ than someone you fantasize about. Cute-not-hot girls have a built in ceiling of around 8.5. She gets a 7.9"

That was entertaining!

6/14/2012 11:01:55 AM

damn, SLAVE FAMOUS

slow day at work?

And #1 all the way for face and body.

6/14/2012 11:01:56 AM

[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM. Reason : . wrong thread]

6/14/2012 11:03:52 AM

#2 ftw

6/14/2012 11:05:54 AM

Slave has been doing this for a while. I will say that was one of his weakest breakdowns. He didn't even give a numerical value for #1.

6/14/2012 11:16:11 AM

Why are most ppl saying 2?

She is taller? Or Tallish?

#1 is a bit short, but she is proportioned well. Her face is better than 2, IMO.

6/14/2012 11:18:52 AM

Quote :

"Why are most ppl saying 2?"

6/14/2012 11:23:21 AM

lol

6/14/2012 11:24:20 AM

I feel as if I know #1

but I think #2 has beauty on her side all around...and she has boobs

6/14/2012 11:25:18 AM

+ and - 's for every little thing

can we all just agree that we would fuck all 3 if we could?

6/14/2012 11:28:14 AM

#2 is by a large margin the most attractive of the bunch. A lot of you are saying you can't judge her face, but from what I can see, unless she's covering up some Seal level scarring she's got the best face of the bunch as well. Body is off the charts unless she's rocking a sad, flat ass.

Classic beauty with rocking tits. Yes please.

6/14/2012 11:29:24 AM

Quote :

"can we all just agree that we would fuck all 3 if we could?"

would not touch.

do not find attractive.

6/14/2012 11:30:58 AM

I think it's her long face I don't like.

6/14/2012 11:31:18 AM

Quote :

"I think it's her long face tits I don't like."

[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2012 11:39:01 AM

Why do I feel as if I'd fight to the death for #2??? hah

6/14/2012 11:41:05 AM

I mean, I think overall #2 is probably the best...but I'd gravitate more towards #'s 1 and 3. I'm a shorter guy so I'd rather fuck those two. And I'm an ass man...so although I appreciate the sandbags on numero dos...they don't push her over the top for me.

6/14/2012 11:49:07 AM

I'll take #3, Bob

6/14/2012 11:51:02 AM

this page has me loling

6/14/2012 12:20:29 PM

implying any that trio wouldn't get it

6/14/2012 12:22:51 PM

i'd go 1, 2, 3 in that order. but like many have said, they're fairly interchangeable.

6/14/2012 12:23:30 PM