Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
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.
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.
Then, when you say, "You dick!", your company can just point to the guy's junk in the illustration and say, "Like that?"
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.
In fact, if you want the greatest genetic diversity on a DNA level, we're black.
That specimen is curvy in exactly the right places. Yum.
You may have a legit argument in the differences you observe. But they are BOTH striking poses here.
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.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/201…
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.
Indeed, she's also hot! Whew!
I wouldn't mind doing a drawing from that picture. The pose is very pretty and so is the model.
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.
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!
If you don't like it stop bitching and fix it.
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.
Yeah, that's mammals for you.
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.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P…
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.
Besides: who says SHE is striking a pose but HE isn't? Who stands around palms out like that?