The Woman of Humans

Comments

1
Why are they both white?
2
Why are they both shaved?
3
Cue whining about NSFW despite the fact that this is Slog and is regularly NSFW in 3... 2... 1...
4
why would you think wikipedia is "for scientific purposes?"

5
If she was facing the camera, you wouldn't be able to see her boobs as well. That's not a hard one to figure out.
6
Why is the man standing in such a utilitarian way? The woman expresses her humanness, her beauty and her pose in her stance, while the man stands open armed, half Vetruvian, with all work and and no play attitude. Is this not a stereotype that should be abolished?
7
I'm thinking dude is showing comparative exasperation. "Look, all I got is this penis, whaddaya want from me?"
8
@3

I don't find it regularly NFSW...

But posting nudes pre-jump makes it so. It would be nice if Slog was safe to browse at work.
Sorry if you don't have a job.
9
It is because the person who drew up this illustration was quite probably:

1) pale-skinned;
2) heterosexual;
3) a guy;
4) probably 23 years old.

That's why. All I see here is who gets to have the gaze, and who does not. Patently lame.
10
@8: You should get back to work. As your company might say, "It's not your time. It's our time." Then your company, Hand Enterprises LLC, would ask all your co-workers to come grab a slice of your hot pizza pie.

Then, when you say, "You dick!", your company can just point to the guy's junk in the illustration and say, "Like that?"
11
Why does she look like Kate from Lost? Why did this have to happen at work?
12
The woman is standing in such a way that is flattering - the hips turned sideways like that makes them appear smaller than they actually are. It's a common modeling trick.

I was wondering about the shaved bits. It's been a few years since I took biology, but none of the pictures I saw of human anatomy showed shaved bits back then. I guess even biology must be in style with the times.
13
why do they have no body or pubic hair?
14
Cause you can't see things when they're covered with hair. Jesus, people. Chill.
15
@11: You're still in the workforce? You must be a tough old man.
16
Most humans aren't white.

In fact, if you want the greatest genetic diversity on a DNA level, we're black.
17
@15: I know, right? Also, I'm pretty sure he's 86 by now. C'mon old man, update your profile.
18
Why is the chick fat?
19
@18, she is not fat!
20
@18 I am really sad for you.

That specimen is curvy in exactly the right places. Yum.
21
She has a natural posture, and he is splayed out--his hands are twisted outward uncomfortably. Yet you think she's the one that 'has to strike a pose'?

You may have a legit argument in the differences you observe. But they are BOTH striking poses here.
22
I'm really impressed with the body type they chose for the woman (not stick-skinny), and I find her to be my personal ideal. I do feel it kind of odd that she's posing, because -- for me, anyways -- other than the breasts, everything else looks better head-on.
23
@7 FTW hahahaha.

I dunno you mean well but I wouldn't think too much about it. She's not bending over or doing some kind of twist pose or something. You could also interpret that she's just standing naturally, in a contrapposto pose.
24
@15 Get busy living or get busy dying.
25
This is everywhere the female is ALWAYS posed - great post on it at Sociological Images:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/201…
26
Why doesn't the *dude* get to strike a more flattering pose? Why isn't he cuter? Also seconding the blackness/whiteness question here.
Oh, we might as well be asking these questions to the wind. Wikipedia's opaque editorial process is more protected than the wall of Helmsdeep, and inquiries are sent immediately to /dev/null - the digital equilvalent of the olde French oubliettes.

Am I the only one who thought she looked a little like Bottecelli's "Birth of Venus" with her hair flowing like that? Not entirely, but just a little.
27
@19 Charles,
Indeed, she's also hot! Whew!
28
@26: Yes, I did think of Bottecelli's "Birth of Venus" from both the pose and the hair.

I wouldn't mind doing a drawing from that picture. The pose is very pretty and so is the model.
29
While I wouldn't call her fat, the woman's percentage of body fat is clearly higher than the guy next to her. Look at her right thigh, how it has cellulite ripples up near her crotch, or how her arm squashes against her rib cage; she's carrying a little extra weight, no doubt about it. By comparison, I can see every muscle in his torso and legs.

And yeah, if they make him stand in such a stiff pose, I don't see why she doesn't as well. Or that they're not both more comfortable. It looks a little weird to have him standing like a scientific specimen but she is standing relatively relaxed.
30
Anything remotely to do with human sexuality on Wikipedia is under constant pressure to pornify. "Wikipedia does not censor" means "try to get as many nude pictures in as possible". Note the level of detail in the labeling of the genitals compared to other parts of the body.
31
If you follow the link, the picture on Wikipedia has a note underneath it that says: "Note that these models have had body hair and male facial hair removed and head hair trimmed." No explanation of why, but they do acknowledge it.
32
I don't view SLOG as NSFW, but posts could be done with a small amount of class. I would say this post is not ok for NSFW requirements.

I think the only solution is to find a way for people at work to read slog without any images. I don't understand RSS reader things but if one of those can cut images then: yaaay!
33
Charles, it's Wikipedia. Anybody can edit it so why don't you just make your own graphic. You work at a newspaper, I'm sure you could easily drum up the resources to fix this horrendous error.

If you don't like it stop bitching and fix it.
34
No butt shot?
35
@9 Seeing that there is both a nude male and female, I think your reference to 1970's "gaze theory" fails in this case. There are people that will find either person pictured, "gaze" worthy.
36
humans = men's and women's body parts. . . it's just all about the body parts innut?

Wait. Does one of the notes point to the man and read: "privileged." dunno, it's hard to read. :P

all in all, yeah i agree with Charles and #30. good grief.
37
@36: Ooooh, extra points for correct use of word "privilege." If Evergreen gave letter grades (which we don't, because they only serve to reinforce a competitive and hierarchical system which promotes a capitalist / patriarchal / heteronormative model where some students are "better" or "study harder" than others), you'd get an A+!
38
@29 "While I wouldn't call her fat, the woman's percentage of body fat is clearly higher than the guy next to her."

Yeah, that's mammals for you.
39
It's Wikipedia, the author probably just used the best pictures on Google image search that he could find of naked people on white backgrounds.
40
Yeah, they're cropped from two separate images, that's why. Also, I'm genuinely amazed that Mudede didn't play the "waah-waah-they're-both-white-wikipedia-is-claiming-black-people-aren't-human" race card.
41
@37 Seriously, you are the reason I quit going to the school. ugh. I'm going to puke.

As for the image, they are both human doing human things. Rationality is not one of those things, and it is not to be expected. See there? Yes there is no "rationality lobe" pointed to on the diagram. This sort of overphilosiphication seems to reinforce the problem being described here (namely, women being shown as "sexy" and men as "utlitarian"....right?) rather than to preempt or nullify it.
42
@38: Ha! You have me there...
43
Can't believe everyone's mentioning chubby chick but not dude with his TINY PENIS.
44
Um, she's not chubby. And he doesn't have a "tiny penis." Fail.
45
Took way too many comments for someone to say that the one of the woman is obviously just someone's f'ing girlfriend or whatever. The shots are not at all similar. Christ.
47
Um, pretty sure all the people yelling "fatty" are just trolling.
48
It's Wikipedia. If you have to ask "why?", you have a long way to go...
49
Clearly someone assembled the images out of stuff they found for free on Google images or something. She's not splayed out like a vivisected frog because whoever put the diagram together couldn't find an adequate image of a woman in the same pose that the man is in. It's not just a question of how she's posed -- look at the differences in the lighting and the scale. She's got top-lighting, he's lit head-on. She's wearing earrings. She has long hair, when there's nothing about long hair that's remotely relevant to the anatomical differences between the sexes. Then, whatever well-meaning teenage boy put the thing together proceeded to mark distinctions very selectively.

The images are skewed toward objectifying the woman, but they're skewed like that because some net geek did it that way. The failure of objective comparison is obvious to even a gender theory neophyte. This image is not societally meaningful.
50
She is in a pose reminiscent of Botticelli's Venus. He is in a pose reminiscent of Da Vinci's Universal Man. They're artistic references (no, neither of them exact).

Besides: who says SHE is striking a pose but HE isn't? Who stands around palms out like that?