This Girl is Not Attractive, so Short Her

by Johnny Debacle

Or more appropriately, you need to separate nubility from future attractiveness. [This is a response to Juggles and Edamame]

  • This is a flattering photographic situation. Slightly shaded, one side of the face, not too close. She could have giant legs and a fupa complementing her subpar bosoms. We don’t know.
  • Her face could be anything. She’s 19 and while she has the blush of youth, she does not seem to have the structure either in face or in body to withstand age and maintain any attractiveness, which she may or may not currently have. She will trend down, and then lose all she’s got by 31 when she will have the superficial sexual appeal of tapioca pudding.
  • She appears to have a chalky residue on the side of her feet. That is unacceptable and it’s example as to why you always have to check out the feet before consummating the relationship.
  • I guarantee you she is awful in bed.
  • While you both may agree, there is nothing that precludes you from both being wrong.


Background: Juggles linked me to this NY Times article, which focuses on girls who are on high riser tracks, are ambitious career-wise and attend prestigious schools but fully plan to end their careers and become stay-at-home mom’s at some as to yet undetermined point in the future. He wrote “she is cute, sign me up” (he actually writes like that) and that Kaiser agreed with him.

Recommendation: Short Emily Lechner and also Edamame and Juggles’s projection of women; long JD.

Ad Sense Ad Sense


  1. Yale '07
    March 28th, 2008 | 6:21 pm

    she actually is pretty cute I know her

  2. March 29th, 2008 | 11:16 am

    Hey man, I agreed with you.

  3. fred
    April 8th, 2008 | 12:45 am

    even if she is wonderful in bed, what difference would that make to the rest of us. so short her, and her friend/mother to.