Emily Ratajkowski lands seven figures for book on sex as a single mom - Los Angeles Times 30%

By Emily St. Martin22%

7/10/2026, 11:20:29 PM

Keywords: The Latest

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 170 hits. Analysis detected 1,713 faulty-reasoning hits from 859 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.8% and a BS Rank of 30% (15,397 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.30% of the article peer group.

(Pascal Le Segretain / Getty Images for Loewe) 
July 10, 2026 5:15 PM PT 
Click here to listen to this article 
This is read by an automated voice. 
Please report any issues or inconsistencies here . 
See more from the L.A. 
Times in Google Search. 
Set us as preferred 
p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text" data-subscriber-content> 
Emily Ratajkowski’s viral essay detailing her sex life as a single mom just landed her a seven-figure book deal. 
According to Page Six, the model’s essay in the Cut had publishers champing at the bit in a 12-way bidding war that culminated in the hefty pay day. 
Editor Helen Rouner at Penguin Press  who also edited Lauren Christensen’s memoir “Firstborn” and Michael W. 
Clune’s novel “Pan”  landed the deal. 
“Emily is an electrifying writer, and she works with a style and force of presence that any publisher would be lucky to support,” Rouner told The Times on Friday. 
“She’s painting with every color in the palette.” 
Rouner continued that the forthcoming memoir is “wise, funny, irreverent, moving  and wholly original.” 
Publishers Marketplace announced the forthcoming memoir, describing it as “an examination of modern female identity through the story of the author’s own efforts as a newly single mother in New York City to discover what really constitutes a good life for a woman.” 
The essay, which dropped a month ago and quickly broke the internet, drops the veil on EmRata’s sexual adventures (or maybe misadventures) since she and her former husband, Sebastian Bear-McClard, split in 2022. 
Column: No, Emily Ratajkowski won’t just shut up and look pretty 
Emily Ratajkowski opens up about estranged husband Sebastian Bear-McClard, Hollywood’s dark side, growing her Bitch Era Media empire and kissing Harry Styles. 
“It was a violent transition into a new reality of screaming baby on my aching tit and ring on my swollen finger,” Ratajkowski writes of new motherhood. 
“And then, in a time period that felt both instant and excruciatingly slow, my marriage collapsed. 
Six months after my son was born, my husband and I stopped having sex. 
Less than a year later, we separated.” 
In the missive, the model interrogates her sexuality  is she a Madonna or a whore?  while untangling bigger questions around gender, power and self-actualization. 
If Carrie Bradshaw wrote about “Sex and the City,” then Ratajkowski is writing about sex, the city and single motherhood. 
And naturally, her fleeting paramours have vague monikers: “Vegan Graffiti Artist,” “Spanish Gen-Zer” and “Son of a Billionaire.” 
“And then there was the Elder Millennial: obsessed with dental hygiene, psychedelics, and dirty talk,” she writes. 
“He had approached the subject coyly at first, like it was something he was kind of embarrassed about  the way a kid will test you to see if you’ll talk to them about their dorky obsession of the moment. 
Do you like Godzilla? 
What about Star Wars?” 
Would-be sleuths with Ratajkowski’s essay and a gossip rag handy will have their work cut out for them. 
This will be Ratajkowski’s second book. 
The first, “My Body,” dropped in 2021 and was a bestselling collection of essays exploring gender, power dynamics, sexuality and the commodification of female beauty in the modeling and entertainment industries. 
Ratajkowski’s foray into the spotlight came more than a decade ago when Robin Thicke’s controversial  Blurred Lines  music video made the model an overnight star. 
She was cast in David Fincher’s adaptation of “Gone Girl,” which hit theaters the following year, and catapulted to top fashion runways  Marc Jacobs, Versace, Victoria’s Secret and Dolce & Gabbana, to name a few. 
She she’s been romantically linked to Harry Styles, Eric Andre, Shaboozey, Brad Pitt and Pete Davidson, among others. 
In 2023, she moonlighted as the host of the “High Low With EmRata” podcast, where she interviewed sex workers, investigated ethical nonmonogamy and pondered the etymology of the word “toxic.” 
The same year, she told The Times that she was coming into herself post-divorce, “Being able to assert what I want  that feels like it just started: My life as a creator and not as a muse.” 
Entertainment & Arts Books The Latest 
Get our big stories about Hollywood, film, television, music, arts, culture and more right in your inbox as soon as they publish. 
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service , which include arbitration and a class action waiver. 
You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads. 
Emily St. 
Martin is an entertainment reporter on the Fast Break Desk. 
Before joining the Los Angeles Times, she contributed to the New York Times, InStyle, Cosmopolitan, BBC, Vice and Los Angeles Magazine. 
She also previously worked at the Hollywood Reporter, and served as the digital features editor at Southern California News Group. 
In 2025, she won first place for best editorial with the L.A. 
Press Club. 
More From the Los Angeles Times 
Most Read in Entertainment & Arts 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.8%Emily St. Martin: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Emily St. Martin: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 5.1%Emily St. Martin: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 3.1%Emily St. Martin: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias3.1%This article: 5.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias5.0%This article: 19.8%Emily St. Martin: 6.9%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect19.8%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%Emily St. Martin: 5.8%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%Emily St. Martin: 6.1%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect18.4%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Emily St. Martin: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 7.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.7%Emily St. Martin: 3.7%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority9.7%This article: 4.3%Emily St. Martin: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.1%Emily St. Martin: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization2.1%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.9%Emily St. Martin: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon2.9%This article: 16.5%Emily St. Martin: 7.6%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion16.5%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.3%Emily St. Martin: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.3%Emily St. Martin: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division2.3%This article: 8.0%Emily St. Martin: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal8.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.3%Emily St. Martin: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote16.3%This article: 5.7%Emily St. Martin: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.7%This article: 18.0%Emily St. Martin: 4.4%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice18.0%This article: 1.3%Emily St. Martin: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination1.3%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily St. Martin: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Emily St. Martin: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.2%

859 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers15%attributed speech726writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageHelen Rouner • 29 words • 0.0% coverageHelen Rouner • 8 words • 100.0% coverageHelen Rouner • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePublishers Marketplace • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageThe Times • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Times

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words29% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+86.0 ptsWriter: 14.0%The Times: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.2 ptsWriter: 20.2%The Times: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%The Times: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%The Times: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%The Times: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.