1. Christian action figures. They talk, too!
2. Megan Fox and sampling on the independent variable
3. Possibly the ugliest work of art in the history of creativity
Nothing as Useful as a Bad Theory
4 years ago
06/03/2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
From #2:
I’ve always found Megan Fox to be less sexy than a painfully deliberate simulacra of sexy.
I love this description. I'm repulsed by mass-media images of women that look nothing like anyone you might expect to encounter in life, but rather like someone else's idea of what men should find attractive.
Someone asked a question on AskMetafilter about why body standards for women have apparently gotten skinnier. This person linked to a Rembrandt painting and a photo of Megan Fox that supposedly showed this evolution. (Warning: that link has two links, one to painted nudity and another to photographed semi-nudity.) This was the first time I had ever heard of Megan Fox. My reaction to the photo of her wasn't, "Wow, what a perfect woman." I thought, "Wow, she would be gorgeous if she gained some weight." And it's not that I'm not attracted to skinny women. But she looks like someone airbrushed away her torso so that it's just breasts attached to a 2-dimensional stomach.
Re: Megan Fox, I know where you're coming from, but I think if there was no preference for looks such as hers, she wouldn't be popular. (I'm told she's not known for her excellent acting - see links in an earlier post of mine.) One might want to note in this context that she's best known for being in the Transformers franchise, which is aimed primarily at male adolescents.
As coincidences go, I just found this abstract via google.
Oh, one more thing: It's not unlikely at all that the photo of Fox actually is - well, not airbrushed, but photoshopped. Standard practice nowadays. I'd put more trust in screenshots from her films.
Post a Comment