Miranda Kerr and a bunch of chicks are topless

November 20th, 2009 // 195 Comments

These are handouts from the 2010 Pirelli Calendar Launch Party in London last night, and I’m not pointing any fingers here, but had Summit Entertainment passed out free porn, maybe I would’ve came to their little launch event this week. — Okay, you’re right, I still wouldn’t have shown up, but I might have sent an intern with a duffel bag and instructions to get Ashley Greene’s phone number because apparently she’s the easy one. So put that in your marketing pipe and smoke it.

Photos: Getty

Comments (195)

  1. Titties | November 21, 2009 at 1:23 am

    Itty bitty titties!! I like.

    Reply
  2. SLOTHS! | November 21, 2009 at 1:30 am

    hahaha That sloth is LOVING those titties.

    Reply
  3. The Clap | November 21, 2009 at 1:56 am

    A sloth….. Really?

    Reply
  4. whatever | November 21, 2009 at 1:57 am

    What is she? Like 10 feet tall?
    The golly tittie giant.

    Reply
  5. what? | November 21, 2009 at 2:13 am

    these bitches are uuuugggggglllllyyyy. it looks like the photographer went down to a local dive hick bar beside a trailer park and said to a couple of very underaged girls ‘hey baby…wanna go outside and take some polaroids?”

    nasty bodies – i don’t care what ANYONE says, they are too thin to be attractive and they all have gross tiny little titties…perhaps with the except of the red head – she turned out to have a really nice body…but she has the child-crack-whore look about her face, like all the rest of them.

    i HONESTLY would not touch a single one of these girls. not one. the only reason i would give any one of them a second look is because they are so strange looking. people just think their hot cause they are models…but anyone who says they would find them attractive if they weren’t models is a LIAR.

    Reply
  6. maeby | November 21, 2009 at 2:28 am

    she looks ten years old. gross

    Reply
  7. Vagoo | November 21, 2009 at 2:29 am

    I see vagoo

    Reply
  8. Blech | November 21, 2009 at 2:32 am

    Um, ew, photograph #11 made me nauseous.

    The redhead has pretty hair. Otherwise, yeah, these girls look either way too young or way too thin and overall UNCOMFORTABLE being photographed like this. It’s creepy.

    ::Shudder::

    Reply
  9. Pizza | November 21, 2009 at 2:35 am

    Lol that picture #2′s pepperoni nips are’nt fully covered by the star

    Reply
  10. RtSS | November 21, 2009 at 2:36 am

    Nice! Just in time for thanksgiving. I love breast meat. I’ll take another helping, please.

    Reply
  11. shvlhd | November 21, 2009 at 2:56 am

    This is without a doubt the worst Pirelli calendar I have ever seen in my 48 years.

    Reply
  12. Leena | November 21, 2009 at 3:00 am

    These girls are drop dead gorgeous. Just flawless. Women are the most beautiful thing who ever’s out there created.

    Reply
  13. Tad Bit Tipsy | November 21, 2009 at 3:06 am

    What’s up with the text tattoo’s, does every whore in Hollywood have these? Tasteless crap. I like tattoo’s, but that shit is terrible and they are all going for it like it was a roadmap to success(no ladies its blow jobs just like Miss Fox has perfected, she cups the balls!!!). This is like every porn star who gets a ho tag for the dudes to aim at with their spunk(kind of like color by number… now where’s a little white needed..hmm).

    But the redhead is hot with a decently proportionate body, I just wish I could see if she has red hair all over… he he.

    Reply
  14. Rupert | November 21, 2009 at 4:53 am

    These dudes sure are insensitive to androgens.

    Reply
  15. Brooke | November 21, 2009 at 6:18 am

    Uh… she looks like a 12-year-old farm girl. Small breasts can be beautiful, but combined with her young looking face and boney chicken legs, it’s like she hasn’t hit puberty yet in that first pic.

    And sloth. HA!

    Reply
  16. 1moreidiotintheworld | November 21, 2009 at 6:56 am

    Look at the smile on that Sloth’s face!!! I guess a quick titty-fuck for the camera gives him some smack talk to lay on his cage mates back at the zoo………

    Reply
  17. kay2 | November 21, 2009 at 6:57 am

    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!

    Reply
  18. kay2 | November 21, 2009 at 6:58 am

    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!

    Reply
  19. EuroNeckPain | November 21, 2009 at 7:29 am

    Hurry, someone save these girls from this bunch of perverts !!!!!!!!!
    Nasty photographers, terrible pictures. You’re under the impression that after these shots, they were raped, killed and buried somewhere in the jungle.

    Reply
  20. RtSS | November 21, 2009 at 7:37 am

    Man, I just don’t see it. The red haired on has a cubby round face. She is a bit disturbing. Although, I would tend to agree. I am curious if she is a fire crotch, and has those red curly short hairs decorating her love tunnel. If so, I’d give her my schlong and dump my load of protein into her.

    Reply
  21. Jay | November 21, 2009 at 8:01 am

    Thanx Fish!! You rock!! Love them titties!!

    Reply
  22. Erica | November 21, 2009 at 8:08 am

    The sloth… just awesome.

    Reply
  23. who? | November 21, 2009 at 8:28 am

    PLEASE – give those girls a cheeseburger!

    Reply
  24. Turd da Third | November 21, 2009 at 8:40 am

    Two thirds of these picts looks like 12 year olds. These chicks are gross. You know they must be young because they haven’t installed the high performance hooters yet and ruined their rack…give it time..

    Anyway these anorexic little girlies are definately not hot. The one chich with the stupid foot tatt looks ridiculous.

    NNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXXXTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

    Reply
  25. iammambo | November 21, 2009 at 8:47 am

    Comment #5 is obviously a fatty.

    Reply
  26. Duchess Of Dork | November 21, 2009 at 8:52 am

    I think it’s really saying something when more than 50% of the comments on The Superficial are complaints that the girls photographed are too skinny.

    Reply
  27. Dave | November 21, 2009 at 8:58 am

    Wow, so that’s what the real one look like.
    Huh.

    They’re not so bad after all.

    Reply
  28. Sir Mix Alot | November 21, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Everyone is so fat now that people of proper weight are considered “too skinny”. go look at what a true anorexic looks like and then look at the photo’s again. Moron’s.

    Reply
  29. WTF | November 21, 2009 at 10:32 am

    @28
    It’s “morons,” moron. No apostrophe.

    And yes, they are too skinny. Far too bloody skinny.

    Reply
  30. farty mcshitface | November 21, 2009 at 10:38 am

    very true number 29. they are far too skinny. i see nothing but a bunch of bony-assed stick-legged women. a big bag of unimpressive.

    Reply
  31. just sayin' | November 21, 2009 at 10:52 am

    better skinny than fat

    Reply
  32. ew ew ew | November 21, 2009 at 10:55 am

    I dont think they’re to skinny, some chicks just naturally look like that and are still healthy and dont need to starve themselves.

    What really is beyond disturbing is that she looks like a 6yr old. 10yrs at the most. Sooooo creepy, and this is what men find atractive???? Ew ew ew ew.

    Reply
  33. Parker | November 21, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Anyone who says these chicks aren’t hot are out of their minds. I would bttfuck any one of them—or all of them—any time, any place.

    Reply
  34. @what? | November 21, 2009 at 11:33 am

    ” 5. what? – November 21, 2009 2:13 AM

    these bitches are uuuugggggglllllyyyy. it looks like the photographer went down to a local dive hick bar beside a trailer park and said to a couple of very underaged girls ‘hey baby…wanna go outside and take some polaroids?”

    nasty bodies – i don’t care what ANYONE says, they are too thin to be attractive and they all have gross tiny little titties…perhaps with the except of the red head – she turned out to have a really nice body…but she has the child-crack-whore look about her face, like all the rest of them.

    i HONESTLY would not touch a single one of these girls. not one. the only reason i would give any one of them a second look is because they are so strange looking. people just think their hot cause they are models…but anyone who says they would find them attractive if they weren’t models is a LIAR.

    Shut the fuck up, fag.. No one gives a fuck if you’d touch them or not, and the fact you would call them ugly, just shows that you’re a fucking liar trying to show your ass on a msg board- that, or youre fucking gay. Period. Theres a difference between not finding them AS attractive as others, because you prefer thicker women, and being just plain ignorant. Shut your fucking cockholster – these women are beautiful, and you’re irrelevant.

    PS- The rest of you whining about them being skinny, need to get off your fat asses and stop believing the hype that ‘chunky is healthy’ and you’re ‘real women’….theres toned, and then theres piglets- I’m guessing you fall under the latter.

    Keep hating though, stupid fucks.Your jealousy is so apparent its pathetic. Dont mind me though, you keep funneling those ho ho’s into your nasty gape of a mouth!

    Reply
  35. Duke Nukem | November 21, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Smoking hot. And NO, DONT feed them a cheeseburger. The last thing we need is more fat chicks.

    Reply
  36. Smarm | November 21, 2009 at 11:55 am

    Agreed wholeheartedly w 35 (and 34, now that I look at it)…I’m into chicks w meat on their bones as well and I’m not saying the chick HAS to be this skinny to be hot but to say they’re ugly, or disgusting….well, fuck that nonsense.

    Reply
  37. SOS | November 21, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    yeah #5 you like girls who eat too many twinkies? Because there’s nothing wrong with being that thin.
    So go ahead and get off to pics of girls who don’t take good care of their bodies and abuse them by eating too much junk food.

    Reply
  38. dk | November 21, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    @5 your completely right and just voicing a valid opinion. Dont let it bother you that the people attacking you are into molestation, necrophilia and whores that are riddled with cancer and smell like tuna…. Everyone of these bitches needs to eat, workout and get their boobs done, period.

    Reply
  39. mel gibson | November 21, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    #5 fuck you homo

    Reply
  40. Luz | November 21, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    Everyone has their own ideas of what is attractive. Just because #5 doesn’t find these anorexic looking chicks attractive doesn’t make them gay or fat or some other immature internet attack word. If these twigs are your idea of hot that’s fine, but why do you care so much if someone disagrees with you? Get over it, not that serious.

    And for the millionth time I am so sick of comments calling the nay-sayers fat or ugly or whatever. I have learned that women tend to have a higher standard for gauging a fellow female’s attractiveness. But even so, just because I don’t think these girls are “gorgeous” or “smoking hot”, doesn’t make me jealous, fat, ugly, etc. The world has +6 billion people in it, not everyone is going to agree, but this internet bravery and bullying is the saddest thing to see.

    Reply
  41. Dj | November 21, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    ok so first of all, Miranda Kerr is not 6 years old or 10 years old like some of you seem to believe, so it’s ok for men to like her if they want to, quit freaking out. Second, they are not too skinny, it’s called being hot, more ppl should try it. And for the record, i’m a girl. I agree with #28, fat has become the norm, and what was normal weight is now considered super skinny.

    Reply
  42. kitty_kat | November 21, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    You guys that are attacking people for saying these women are too skinny are crazy. Their bones are literally popping out. How is that healthy? If you put Miranda Kerr on the cover of National Geographic, every one of you would be talking about how horrible the effects of starvation are. I agree with #15. With the possible exception of the redhead, they look like they haven’t hit puberty yet.

    And I’ve gotta say that the fact Miranda is a VS model just goes to show you how far the publication has fallen.

    Reply
  43. mehh | November 21, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    I dont find any of them special, and imo only rosie and the last girl are sexy, but theyre not ugly…. just im not a fan of the boyish, modelesque shape

    Reply
  44. Dj | November 21, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    http://thesuperficial.com/2009/08/miranda_kerrs_camel_toe_and_ot.php
    this pic alone should shut everyone up – hot. Anyway that says different needs their freakin head examined…

    Reply
  45. zulu | November 21, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Ok.. There are people who are naturally skinny. I’m 5 ft tall and weigh 80 pounds. I eat cheeseburgers, fries, chinese food, and I love brownies! I just can’t get fat.

    Also, a body that is considered “average” in the US is actually “obese” in many other countries.

    Haha fat people can talk about skinny people all day but skinny people can’t talk about fatties. It’s just mean.

    Reply
  46. saywha? | November 21, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    anyone who thinks miranda kerr isn’t hot has been looking at too much porn and has forgotten what real women look like. sorry folks, not every chick has dd’s.

    Reply
  47. lisa | November 21, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    wow, lovin’ the lily cole pic #3

    Reply
  48. jamillah | November 21, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    Whoever thinks these girls are in shape is delusional — these girls have outright muscle wastage! If they in fact worked out, they’d have more muscular legs and asses worth looking at. At the moment, they appear skinny-fat and sickly — not fit or in shape.

    Reply
  49. ChEF | November 21, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    who’s the redhead?

    Reply
  50. Hungry | November 21, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    These women really do look nasty…I mean I am looking at them and suddenly feel the need for a 5 course meal, and I just ate not to long ago and was not hungry at all before this. Seeing these types of women will make our obesity problem worse.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Name (Visible)
Email (Required, Not Visible)