Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
OH DEAR GOD WHY WOULD SOMEBODY DO THIS TO THEMSELVES!?
Alright, after having a moment to calm down, I realize why this bothers me
BECAUSE SHE IS A FUCKING LIVING MANNEQUIN AT THIS POINT! FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!
Comments
Holy shit that is a real person.
XD
From a certain point of view, this hardly looks like a statement of distaste.
Actually dude, FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK is the last thing you probably want to do with her.
Ok, some people are saying that it may be a fake. That's... More reassuring. Still, somebody even remotely considering this should be shot on sight
Actually, I think that fucking such a person could be funny. Like fucking an extremely well-detailed sex doll, but free of the unease caused by fucking a sex doll.
^ Except no
Keep anybody that looks like that away from me
^^And with that replaced with the unease caused by fucking someone who wanted to look like a sex doll.
Distaste wash over all of you!
Not a single blurb of remote control forest itself.
Not only is she not the only woman who has done this, there's a guy who turned himself into Ken too.
My reaction went something like this:
"What? I don't get it? She's hot, so what?"
~scroll down~
"Wait..."
~scroll~
"Why does she look so..."
~scroll~
"Aw, that's depressing, she's one of those obsessive plastic surgery types.
"
I mean, she's not really unattractive, I'd say. She just manages to hit the real-life uncanny valley.
Though I'll be honest, I didn't get that she was supposed to be a living Barbie until you pointed it out, Nyktos.
This is one of the rare moments when I actually get to use this image.
All we're seeing here is still photos. Imagine what she looks like in motion.
^ ...If I have nightmares tonight/die due to a mannequin, I am kicking your ass
I dunno. She is in fact gorgeous. That's the problem, really, to me: she's attractive, obviously so, but observation indicates the plain fact that it is either wholly or partially artificial, and it simply generates sympathy from me, that someone would go so far to meet what should be by all rights an impossible standard of beauty set by society...
I don't think society ever asked for this. This is more like an art project.
Wait, now that I look at this a few more times and DAMN that looks like a freakin' mannequin.
Yes, "that". Not "she", but "that".
You know when you've hit the rock bottom of the uncanny valley when I still question (read: hope) that those are photoshops.
Sure it did. It just didn't expect anybody to go through enough hell to clear the bar.
Wake up and smell reality, ladies and gentlemen. If we all met the fictional standards of beauty presented to us every day, we'd look like that. That is the awful kind of shit feminists talk about when they speak of objectification.
Though, I do have a question: are those all of one women, or are they of multiple women?
You know, I'm pretty sure that women are more asked to look like Angelina Jolie than Barbie.
I'd venture to say more that Barbie is the theoretical perfect standard, but people like Angelina Jolie are the closest we come to it in reality without copious amounts of plastic surgery and other harmful bullshit.
This girl, therefore, went the whole nine yards with the plastic surgery and harmful bullshit.
Beauty is observed, not existent.
In any case, what bugs me about this lady could fill a book, but INUH's comment about an attractive woman via a description pretty much sums it up. Large, blue eyes; platinum blonde hair; tiny waist; large breasts. It reads more like a checklist of theoretically desirable traits than an actual blueprint for a look. Plus it's unimaginative, and that's what really brings me to what I consider to be the most disturbing element of this.
This isn't a look someone has thought about on an individual basis. This is checklisted for mainstream beauty standards and fails because those standards aren't only unrealistic (ergo uncanny valley) but subjective and ultimately bunk. The person under that skin isn't so much looking for self-improvement as much as they're looking for approval ergo the list of theoretically ideal traits. A waist that small doesn't match up with that height or breasts of that size; I would expect a woman that slender to be short and be more moderately endowed. All elements of the human body relate to one-another, even visually, and that's what was missed when putting this woman back together.
Ultimately, I think this works as an unintentional example of where our societal beauty standards could lead if allowed to go unchecked, and how much money and resources can be poured into something without a net positive result. I can understand someone wanting to change their visual appearance, but the fact that this woman chose that particular combination of traits is troubling. If one could be anything, why be this? Societal ideals are prone to change at the best of times, and this combination of traits is the kind of thing I'd expect to characterise MTV or Spike TV.
Judging by people's reaction to this girl, and comparing them to people's reaction to Angelina Jolie, I'd say that people find Angelina's standard of beauty much more desirable than Barbie's.
While it was an opinion, it's also true as a generality by the standards of society.
That's because it's been brought into reality and exposed for the fraud it really is. In the meantime, more Barbie fluff will be marketed to little girls everywhere yet another year in the row as an example of an ideal woman. There is a fundamental disconnect here between societal standards and reality; that's the point.
Yes, it is called 'the inability to mass-produce dolls that fit the actual standards of beauty that exist'.
You argue that Barbie is the ideal standard of beauty, but I disagree. I think it is a representation, yes, but with several important differences- not the least of which is that, as a general rule, humans prefer their wimmins to look less artificial.
Yes, they do. And they still spend millions marketing that shit as a normal, acceptable standard to children, and not as an unrealistic piece of fantasy.
Though you are right, it's not the standard, it's a standard. But it is representative of the media's obsession with standards of beauty that when fully realized to their logical extent are in fact horrifying.
Generally, it's understood that Barbie and other similar dolls are only a replica, an imperfect realization of the standard you are talking about.
This is hardly the only time people have attempted to reproduce what they see as something to strive for;
Hooray, anime is now Barbie.