Not OT: Kate Upton Zero Gravity - Happy Holidays!!!
Somebody send this to Jim. Let's amend the offer to include a few minutes in the chamber with Kate.
December 19th, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^
This may be the real reason his wife wants to stay on the west coast
December 19th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
Nice natural boobs, check. And then what??
So from the boobs up and from the boobs down she's nothing but average (inside and out from what I've heard and seen).
Talk about a nuthin' but filler post for upvotes.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
I want to make it clear that this "other" AZ Blue does not represent all of us down in AZ.....Love me some Kate!...
December 19th, 2014 at 9:00 PM ^
I knew not celebrating boobs would get me negged. <<shame>>
It's been photos of REAL Kate that I can't get out of the head. Like this gem.....
December 19th, 2014 at 2:47 PM ^
Damn you must be insane or have a super hot wife becasue if you think she is "average" than you are going against most men in not only the country but the world.
December 19th, 2014 at 9:13 PM ^
Like having a weird midsection and no calves. (See above)
Never said I'd not partake, just not part of the "oh look it's Kate Upton's Boobs doing something" crowd and don't find it post worthy. Many many many other boob-holders out there that would get me "up votin'" so to speak.
[disclaimer - before any of the sensitive types out there get their panties in a bunch, I did not say all women are nothing but "boob holders." I married one, woman and boob holder, so I know for a fact they hold more than that.]
December 19th, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^
In what world is it appropriate to joke of offering a woman up as an object for use?
Truly awful post
December 19th, 2014 at 10:01 AM ^
Like hitler, or starvation. You must be a lot of fun at parties.
/lighten up my SJW friend.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:04 AM ^
But passive sexism is just plain stupid and wrong. It's embarrassing - someone created a post about Kate Upton for no reason than to imply she should be offered up as a sexual prize. That's beyond stupid and you're defending it. Why? It wasn't even clever. This isn't an SJW thing, it's a decency/modern thing
December 19th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^
career is built upon the idea of her being a sexual prize. I'm pretty sure she's fine with it.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
You just gave the baseline argument used for "she was asking for it dressing that way." I think you can be professionally attractive and not be asking for "we should offer her for sex hurhur!"
I'm not worried about Upton's safety. I'm bothered there are board members who think shit like this is on topic and appropriate
December 19th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
You sound like the type of person that buys their loved ones tube socks for xmas.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
“One can never have enough socks," said Dumbledore. "Another Christmas has come and gone and I didn't get a single pair. People will insist on giving me books.”
- J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
December 19th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
that's exactly what I meant. christ on a cracker.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^
Kate makes a lot of money on her (heretofore-thougth-to-be-impossible) body and is constantly implying her sexuality over as big a media landscape as she possibly can. A little joke over her being a "prize" can be expected.
For those who find the joke offensive, you're probably right, but I doubt Kate would get too uptight over it, especially given its completely fictitious context. Still, as a general rule making jokes about getting sex as a prize is a bad idea (unless it's with your wife/gf. then it's fun)
December 19th, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^
Lighten up, man. I believe we get your point.
However, when Ms. Upton is doing her Mercedes ad, and is dressed and acts seductively, you don't believe she was selected because of her expertise on the dynamic aspects of flame fronts in the car's combustion chamber, do you?
December 19th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
I'm only objecting to the celebrated idea of woman offered up as sexual reward.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
I think the term was "a few minutes in the chamber", I'd love to float around in that chamber bumping in to her. Now if you are speaking of a sexual prize then I suggest that a few minutes would be much too long for any of us to accomplish more than a boil over.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
You are missing an extremely important point here, whatever she does and how she wishes to portray herself is based on WHAT SHE CHOOSES! She has the right and ability to say yes to what she is comfortable with and no to what she is not. All the photos and video out there of her are what she has approved of so lets keep it proper around here, as she is an attractive women, but not anyones sexual toy and to suggest that is not appropriate for this type of forum - there are plenty of forums out there where you can go.
Mods - please consider deleting this thread. I know, the EGJ wants censorship.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^
Social justice is about modern decency. The people who use "SJW" as a pejorative are just angry that you pointed out their shittiness.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
No, the people who are using SJW in this thread are tired of people like you and the person who started all this of making a mountain out of a molehill
The hasn't been any crimes against humanity here. Nobody has threatened Ms. Upton. Nobody has been profane or crass. Calm down womyns studies majors -- we have not set back suffrage 100s of years based upon men ogling Kate Upton.
It's a freaking joke. Lighten up. You and Geaux_Blue represent everything which is wrong with forum comments on the internet.
December 19th, 2014 at 1:06 PM ^
Social justice on the internet is also about phony outrage and talking down to people. Sure, people can act like they do it for altruistic reasons, but there's also a "hey everyone, look at how socially conscious I am" vibe that goes along with it. #CancelColbert is a good example.
Here's the thing: Geaux_Blue was right. The post is a bit creepy. Then why don't we just say it's creepy, downvote and move on? That's all that needs to be done. Nah, let's make him out to be a womanizing monster instead.
Righteous indignation is a drug.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:02 AM ^
There were a lot of guys in the Chamber. None of them were doing anything inappropriate.
Enhance your calm John Spartan.
Merry Christmas :)
December 19th, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^
Why can't you just stand by your "joke" instead of diving away like you meant "attend." If you're gonna derp, stick with it. Now you're just being gross AND dodgy
December 19th, 2014 at 10:22 AM ^
Lighten up Francis.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
You beat me to it. Dancing Kate Upton agrees.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^
Where did he say "use"? He said a few minutes in the chamber. Which she's doing in the picture. Which is consistent with her product - namely, herself and glamour. It's like suggesting "maybe Zingerman's will give him a few sandwiches."
People like you take a valid social issue and go so far overboard that your objections are tedious and neither instructive nor productive, which I can only assume is your intent.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
He totally meant come along for a photo shoot. But just for a few minutes. Fly into space for a few minutes then leave. Not sex. Totally.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
Totally geaux attack a real problem instead of trying to create something out of nothing.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
So was the OP meaning a photo shoot or sex? You just pivoted to the lulz Internet argument.
December 19th, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^
You're sick man. None of us were thinking of sex when we saw the OP.
December 20th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
Dude.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
I think the problem is in your mind. I pictured Jim bouncing around in zero gravity with Kate Upton. Sex never entered the equation. She is an admitted Michigan fan. My mind never went where yours did, until you brought it up.
December 19th, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
Sorry to break it to you, bud... even Allah approves of this OP.
December 19th, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
Insightful comment. Sometimes we can take joking too far and lose sight of the humanity of other people. Especially true is the other person looks nice.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^
That was awesome for so many reasons. Science!?!
December 19th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^
JH can do better.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^
he'd simply be happy with box seats at all Tigers home games.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^
How long exactly is it until Mgoblog turns into Reddit? Seems right around the corner now...
December 19th, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^
Brian has repeatedly said he doesn't want the site to become a herpderp of boobs. I don't GAF about the user icons, which are usually WAGs anyways but this crap is just... Crap. Sends a really ugly message about content. At best it makes the site NSFW to HR depts
December 19th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
I agree that the assertion about JH in the chamber with Kate is distasteful, but there aren't any pics directly posted...its a link, clearly stated what is on the other side of it, and you don't have to click it if you don't want to.
Your feelings are warranted, but we know where you stand. So pull the throttle back a bit, okay? Its Friday.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
I think you just missed mine. Many HR depts don't GAF about ESPN/sports illustrated but do about swimsuit, etc. if you see this on front page of mgoblog, you likely just block the site
December 19th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
but other than a tasteless joke, the OP didn't do anything wrong IMO. Its a link, not a picture and the content of the link is obvious. You don't have to go there if you don't want. MAYBE a "NSFW" label is missing, but that's about it. If you click on a link that says "world's sexiest woman" and you had no clue what you were doing, that's on you.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
Im taking about perception based upon a stranger visiting the site. I know what not to click; some may be prevented from even visiting the site if it continues to appear to host content not appropriate for work
December 19th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^
When I said "you", I didn't mean YOU....I meant the general 'you.'
December 20th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
Dude.