Memento Mori
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Memento Mori
-
They must have locked it after all the hits? Here I've rehosted it: http://rapidgator.net/file/b27a8fa655d02bc9748b5cc2e90747f0/Chris_Applebaum__Digital_Film_MultiUpload.biz.mp4.html http://uploaded.net/file/5va5u1mb https://www.sendspace.com/file/d45n59 http://www.share-online.biz/dl/GUV7BYGNO3L5 http://asfile.com/file/cis0SG1 http://fileserving.com/files/qRZ88YHsfg/Chris%20Applebaum%20%20Digital%20Film_MultiUpload.biz.mp4 http://www.sendmyway.com/thvjctge8seu http://upstore.net/XfyQv3 -
Great post, Pith Possum. Had to make an av out of it.
-
In a Bond movie cycle where they just require them to look pretty and not carry any of the narrative. So... not this one.
-
I don't think they're just hiring pretty faces to be Bond girls during this cycle, at least not for major roles. Alessandra Ambrosio-like "walk past Daniel Craig and smile" roles, maybe. There's always Michael Bay, though.
-
The last person to do something like this was investigated by actual law enforcement and sent to actual prison for ten years so, I don't see much need for putting any faith in Reddit's vigilantes.
-
For sure.
-
Regarding Reddit investigations of crimes. Whether or not their heart is in the right place doesn't matter when their track record is atrocious, take for example the suspect they came up with for the Boston bombing.
-
What exactly is "naive" about having images on a password locked allegedly-secure server? Might as well claim someone whose money is stolen from the bank was naive for putting it there.
-
It's not obvious? He clearly works out and he clearly isn't working on his legs. They're twigs, even Bar has more developed calves.
-
Adiz, man, stop skipping leg day.
-
-
"Who can we call who is conventionally beautiful, but has a humanizing minor flaw that has nothing at all to do with the product we're selling?" "Ashley Smith has a gap between her front teeth?" "Perfect. We're really changing perceptions. I'm so open-minded and artistic."
-
-
The post the other user quoted was, your follow-up here is not. There's a vast gulf between implying his accusers have an agenda, and simply listing counterexamples (which may or may not be relevant, for instance: I'm sure Jerry Sandusky hung out with plenty of boys he didn't rape). The differences should be obvious, though I would say both are in poor taste when talking about accusations of sexual assault by a public figure. Anyway, this conversation has little to do with me and I've said my piece so I'll take my leave.
-
Excuse me? It's textbook victim blaming.
-
If there's an objective standard you ought to be able to articulate what precisely makes a face "cheap looking," without reference to makeup, hair, lighting, or the respectability of the brand, then. It seems odd to me that people could describe someone's face as inherently vulgar or cheap and not see how problematic that is. Eh, whatever, just another reason I don't post here much I guess.
-
Playboy has gotten their act together lately after the 90s/early 00s obsession with cookie cutter blondes. There'd be nothing out of place if, for example, Roos van Montfort or Bryiana Noelle or Claire Sinclair or Alyssa Arce were famous for SI and not for being Playmates. That's not to say there's no difference, I mean... I'd put Leanna Decker at the top of my favorite Playboy women but she's not a great fit for SI. And the people I've listed above are still outliers in the sense that there was no question just which Playmates I'd be bringing up when I decided to make this post. But there's more overlap than one might think if they're just recalling stereotypes. The point above by Jennka that a lot of it is makeup and stylization is definitely the case if you look up the work Roos, Bryiana, Claire, and Alyssa did for Playboy. Put them in the Maldives with an SI photographer and there'd be no reliable way of picking them out from anyone in the existing SI lineup. On the other hand -- and this may be a controversial point -- if you take a name from the models section of this site and can't imagine Playboy doing a shoot with them (for aesthetic reasons, not because they're too famous, or any other reasons) they probably aren't a fit for the Swimsuit Issue either.
-
Ah I know about Denise. Just didn't recognize her, thanks.
-
Here's a link to all the images at their point of origin. And a gif montage I saw on Tumblr
-
Random webfinds/Tumblr images: Nudity:
Couple GIF requests:
I'll keep this brief as not to encourage the thread moving further off-topic. First, I think we must acknowledge that feminism is not a monolith. The very article to rape culture I linked contains plenty of feminist critiques of the very idea, good ones too. What I'd insist upon is that dismissing feminism with scare quotes does little for discussion, and a lot for discrediting the entire field. Which, intentions be damned, encourages reactionaries who would love to see even its least controversial goals fail. In any case, your appeal to the taxonomy of the human animal does little to undermine the distinction such arguments present. Men are not feral. We are rational. We have agency. We are also a product of our environment. The environment can and ought to be changed to expect better of us. Second, I too grew up believing that there are few things as unjust as double standards. And in plenty of cases, double standards are something to reject. However, in the real world, all things are not equal, including those things which appear so when placed in categories that imply they are. Double standards that exist for the purpose, explicit or implicit, of correcting injustice or unfairness are not themselves unjust. For example: It may be possible to imagine a world in which racism is not irrevocably entwined by history and present circumstance with white supremacy, but that's definitively not the world we live in. A double standard which acknowledges that reality is not an injustice, it is a moral imperative. And that's all I've got to say in this thread about any of that.
Except men aren't animals and women aren't meat. There is a simple explanation, though, and it falls under the umbrella of rape culture. Feminism doesn't think men are animals, feminism is about accountability for a culture that harms women as well as men. Such as portraying men as animals in the guise of trying to forgive us for negative behaviors we've been conditioned to believe are not only acceptable, but essential to what has become a destructively narrow masculine ideal. Feminism's "problem" is one of branding. People have this idea in their heads that feminism represents some kind of gender cold war, with borders and arms limitations treaties and casus belli, and that's not what it's about at all. Also, there's no such thing as reverse racism. But this isn't a sociology seminar. What Alexandria Morgan quoted above in the thread is a classic case of victim blaming. Edit: Misunderstood who was being quoted. Ms. Morgan was correct to call it out for what it was in her article: There's a lot to unpack here, and her article is a good start.
Ah yeah I forgot to cross-post those gifs here. I think. I usually do, when I get around to making em.
