Friday, January 30, 2009

Dear god.

Well, Our Lady of Introspection is back, posting a bevy of photos from her exploits in Davos. But seriously, we just cannot bring ourselves to share them all with you here. But one thing we must note: These most recent images prove JAB's intellectual cred; I mean, she's the coquette next to FT's John Gapper, and in this one, she wants you to name the economists! Julia + Dr. Doom = Davos cred.

Anyway, Megs, ever the techie, shares a link to the WEF Technology Pioneers. Now that's what we call a geek(ette).



  2. Wow. Congrats ladies. You managed to find a group of horny older guys who will engage you while all the other, more professional and extablished professionals are somewhere else. Score!

    Oh, and maybe make that guy take his hand off your shoulder and suggest he put his other hand someplace more appropriate instead of on Meg's hip/ass?

    Yeah, lots of respect in that photo. You wowed em!

    Keep it Klassy, ladies!

  3. Who's that dude grabbin' up on Megs? Come on girl... have some self-respect; tell that dude to keep it above the equator.

  4. i really can't cast stones about having cleavage, but were i to be at a world economic summit, i'd probably put my c-cups on the DL. just sayin'.

  5. Look at where those men are putting their hands on Meghan and Julia in that photo. In the past, I've not felt the need to comment on Julia's cleavage revelaing outfits or the way she photographs herself cozied up next to MARRIED men like Chad Hurley, but this pushes the boundaries A LOT. What was someone saying about the matchmaking service being an escort service? These pictures do you no favors, ladies.

  6. To give Meghan her due at least she is posting actual Davos related content and not just a load of pictures.

  7. The "Google" party in Davos is tonight. Expect to see Julia Baugher make it all about her. (Even if she's not invited, she'll worm her way into this one I bet.)

  8. Back it up a minute! WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE!?


    We have seen them in action in videos by them and videos by others, speaking in conferences and on their own blogs writing...THEY DO NOT POSSESS ANY SECRET INTELLIGENCE THAT WE DONT KNOW ABOUT!

    Look, I think it's a mix of this:

    1. Some of these visionairies and distinguished people may do great things, but assholes are everywhere. Someone may write a brilliant book and be a sleeze/doofus/hornball/nerd in public situations. 30%

    2. Julia may be good at small talk. Meaning, she can address many topics, but the depth stops there. Most of these social events would be silent without the small talk that circulates the room. Good for her. Quick, easy impressions. 30%

    3. Short skirts on long Californian girls' legs and cleavage access on short loud-mouths from Chicago. 40%

  9. 4. These men want their egos stroked just as much as Julia and Meg.

    WIN WIN.

  10. Is Julia wearing pale nude pantyhose? Mary, step in, please. Even you have more sense than that.

  11. As I suspected (and posted a little further down, in another thread), they are not at the conference, but are hanging around on the fringes and just being brainless party girls.

    Sort of like the video in my link: Julia being way too loud and so desperate for attention that she's riding a bucking dildo while not wearing pants.

  12. NonEntity

    Do you know for a fact they aren't at the confernece? Because they sure make it sound like they are not only there but so busy absorbing it all that they don't even have time to look at their laptops (pretty much how they put it I think).

    If they really aren't in, how much do you want to bet that they will continue to write around that fact, write misleadingly as if they were, just like JA did with the inauguration she apparently never attended, the ball she allegedly crashed and wasn't invited to, and all the other facts they all three so conveniently happen to leave out or discuss in such a way as to give the completely opposite impression from the reality.

  13. Ineff, I don't have any actual proof, just what everyone else here has been reading and seeing - the inane posts and the party a little TOO hard all night photos. Neither she nor Meghan has written even one word about the actual conference, and all of the photos seem to be from piano bars and other social situations away from the conference.

    Just like they obviously lied about the WiFi (as more than a few people have documented throughout this site, quoting Twitters from legit conference attendees who praise the WiFi), they are lying about being AT the conference.

  14. Just to add -

    I think that they will try to pick people's brains for some conference content that they can then post as their own, well after the fact of course.

    They were too absorbed in the conference, you see, to write about it contemporaneously.

  15. I'm with jgh. There is a time and place for short skirts and ridiculously squeezed-together-and-up- with-pushup bra-then-bared-by-lowcut-dress cleavage routine, and I don't think this is it.

    We are supposed to take them seriously when they are repeatedly in situations where all others (men and women) are in appropriate business, professional dress and apparently behaving and talking accordingly, and they are in "date attire" with apparent corresponding mentality and behavior, with some-men-they-just-met's hands all over their bodies? Even when at a social event connected to a professional event, standards are not the same a on a date or regular party, obviously.

    Not to mention the lip dubbing sorority girl (no offense to any meant, it's the context that is at issue) "we're so crazy" routine, in settings that they are not really appropriate for. Paul Carr writes about women being attacked for simply being women who put themselves out there. But I think the problem here is not that they put themselves out ther but that they repetedly insist on puting their cleavage, legs, sexuality, and flirty behavior out there while asking to be taken serously for their minds.

    I think JA uses the "you can be into girly things and serious issues, like I am [where are the serious issues, I've been waiting forever and still haven't seen ANY discussed on her blog]" schtick because it's a way for her to try to excuse the fact that relies on her cleavage and sexual appeal to succeed professionally.

    It's way to try to gain respect while still using a shortcut to get ahead, the same have your cake and eat it too principle that seems to be behind their entire site. These are my opinions and theories only obviously. I can't know what is really in her mind or know her motivations.

    You can be sexual, atractive, and inteligent, obviously. Hell I bet that describes every women who comments here, but using your sexuality and appearance in situations that are not about those things and are about intellect work, and merit, results in you not being taken seriously for in those areas.

    It's not about being ashamed of our bodies or sexuality being wrong or bad. It's about engaging on an equal level with others at professional and educational settings instead of engaging with cleaveage rather than mind.

    And all that applies to men too. If a guy shows up a Davos or DLD in a pec revealing super tight tee, too tight for comfort pants, or an unbuttoned to there shirt revealing large surface area of chest hair and a gold chain, then proceeds to flirt his way up and down the conference and taking kissy pictures with every women around, I'd be saying the exact same thing, believe me.

    Am I behind the times in my thinking? Is this old fashioned or somehow unliberated? I just don't think those outfits and the behavior they regularly display at such events is appropriate at all. And they just did a TMI on office attire? They are the last people I'd take advice from on how to dress, or act, at a job.

  16. Jesus. Tits on toast. Put those suckers away.

  17. Ineff: the light dawns. Julia Allison is always dressed for a date, no matter the occasion, because to her life IS a date. That's the overriding metaphor and it's a little chilling to think about the ramifications.

  18. I like to gauge appropriateness on the "What would Elle Woods do"-scale.

    Elle would definitely bare cleavage, perhaps she'd even wear a mini skirt. However, she would DEFINITELY not allow random men to grope her.

    Why don't these girls seem to understand that the ONLY reason they are accepted is because of their novelty-value?! There are countless intelligent, attractive, sexual, ambitious women in the world of business- in the world period. However these women have actual goals, and talents, and ideas... goals, talents, and ideas that do not involved posing for a cleavage-heavy Wired cover.

    Women in business are not barred from showing cleavage, but, like so many women before them, have to prove through their words, actions, and ethics, that they are much, much more than the sum of their breasts and behinds. NS falls short.

  19. Ineff, great post. I agree with you 100%. I once took a weekend workshp with Naomi Wolff, and she addressed the issue of personal appearance... the bottom line is that while we may wish that baring cleavage and wearing a short pink cheerleader skirt shouldn't detract from how intelligent and accomplished we are, IT DOES. Men are visual creatures, period. By putting all your assets on display, you are redirecting all focus from your brain to your boobs. That's not an old-fashioned concept, it's reality. Naomi is all for wearing whatever you want on an actual date or when you're out with friends, but if you want to be taken seriously as a professional, you HAVE to dress like one even if you don't agree with that concept.

  20. Anon 4:44

    Thanks, and I agree with you. In fact I'd go so far as to say dressing that way doesn't just shift the focus for visually oriented men but even for oneself. If I'm dressed in a sexuality enhacing way, I'm going to be feeling and probably because of that acting differently myself because of how I'm dressed and presenting myself.

    I'm definitely not saying women should make an effort to totally make ourselves look unattrative physically or to cover anything that may entice someone sexually. That's crazy. But just like you probably wouldn't wear overalls to a fancy wedding, it's simply not appropriate to wear date wear to a serious conference and its associated events. Dress for the occasion and all that.

    They could look nice and attractive and even sexy in a classy way without looking inappropriate for the occasion. (I think it can be hard to control how *sexy* you come across, and I don't know if I'd say it's even right to have to try to control that, it's like saying don't be pretty, but one can control how *sexual* they come across.)

    And by the way here's what Charlsie had to say on her twitter recently
    "In good time, the truth shall come."

  21. Oh but don't you guys see, Julia doesn't have any intellect! That's why she dresses like a suburban tart every day! She knows the only way she can get men's attention is by shoving her tits around, and that probably explains why she usually loses boyfriends so quickly. Don't expect her to want to be "taken seriously" when she is really just looking for a rich man to tolerate her for a few seconds.

    I want to kind of give them the benefit of the doubt with all the men pawing at them in this photo. I sense embarrassed smiling coming from Meghan. I could see why they would let the men snuggle next to them, however, because they are two losers who weren't invited to the event and are pretty much mental midgets so they might feel inadequate when hanging out with the C-list stars of Davos. They want them to accept them so they don't mention it when the guys grope their asses during a photo-op.

    And, lets get real here about the guys here: they are entertaining these two because they want to get laid. They are sleezeballs and any guy that would be caught with his arm around Julia is most likely a creep. We all know Dr. Doom is a creepy predator on young women...

  22. Dr. Doom's crib has plaster VULVAS embedded into the walls. He is a sicko perv who will hump anything and everything in his path. I could almost feel sorry for these gals, except I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they're involved in. YUCK!

  23. I won't believe that she and the other nitwit are at the actual conference unless they post photos of conference attendee badges with their names (officially printed) on them.

  24. Count me in as being sick and tired of her "I can be sexy AND substantial at the same time" bullshit.

    Sure, she flaunts her tits, purses her lips, and hangs all over high-profile men, but we have yet to see the smart and substantial side of Julia Allison. Her writing is shallow, superficial, and rather pedestrian. The "lifecasting"? By now, most people who've had more than a passing acquaintance with her have figured out that it's meager blogging and seriously stretching the truth in order to get others to finance a high-living lifestyle.

    Before too long, I guarantee that something like "attended the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2009" or even "participated in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2009" will slip into her bio, just like she abused the name of the "Washington Post" to get out of paying for half a grapefruit at some hotel...when she didn't even work for the Post, but had interviewed to do some writing for their giveaway supplement.

  25. It's Julia all about the name tags? Then why isn't she wearing one? mmmmm. All the questions answered with that little snippet me thinks.

  26. The name tag would cover her breasts.

  27. this picture is very creepy. it almost makes me feel sorry for these two, although julia doesn't even look uncomfortable. i was in academia for years and i know how quickly and how disturbingly "intellectual superstars" can suddenly turn into predatory creeps as soon as liquor is involved or the atmosphere shifts from professional to social. i hope these girls' parents don't see this pic. sigh, meghan, what are you doing!?!?! at least, as someone noted above, she has the good sense to look awkward/embarrassed.

  28. Julia has done this pose before only in her undies, Feb 07:

  29. this photo is extremely gross and uncomfortable. Anon@11:34 posted some pics of JA in her panties as comparison, but this Davos photo doesn't compare, imo. those Gawker photos are staged, fantasy, soft core pornish. the photo above is real and uncomfortably so. have some respect for your own body for goodness sakes!

    also. why do they only seem to be hanging out with old and/or married dudes at this thing?? are there NO younger people at this thing. and, if there aren't, shouldn't that tell these horrible fish out of water something?

  30. they look like theyve been hired to help "welcome" the conference attendees to davos. (especially since they dont have name tags)

  31. Julia's answer in the NS Advice Box, when she was recently asked if she wears pantyhose in cold weather:

    "I never wear pantyhose, EVER, although I have been known (in my younger years - now I just don't care) to wear something I call my "slimming device," which is basically the top part of a pair of control top panty hose cut from the tights. It's like you went to the gym for two weeks straight."

    Yes, it may be petty to some, but to me, it reveals that hypocrisy is part of her core being. She's wearing pantyhose all the friggin' time. Stupid twat.

  32. I am SO FUCKING SICK of her cleavage. Seriously. I think she's under the impression that she is the only woman with tits in the universe. Does she not realize showing fucking 6 inches of cleavage constantly reeks of desperation? What a nutcase.