Memento Mori
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Memento Mori
-
Kipling UHQ
-
Sonnet Bride HQ UHQ
-
Phillip Han
.thumb.jpg.19aef0f65fb34f73eff1622b13d29151.jpg)
-
Sony UHQ
-
Wonderbra HQ UHQ
-
Eblin Video clips (LQ, instagram) merime.by.eblin_57305801_805791916450789_686364717685407744_n.mp4 papimodel_58574185_394347187785106_4720814256881139712_n.mp4
-
Cecilene
-
Marina Bondarko Born: March 15, 2000 in Minsk, Belarus. Height: 173cm 5'8" Bust: 85cm / 33" Wast: 61cm / 24" Hips: 90 / 35.5" Shoes: 38 / 5.5 Hair: Brown Eyes: Green Agencies: Tamara Models (Minsk) PAPI Model Management (Seoul) Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marinabondarko/
-
Any luck?
-
Leonisa: Also almost certainly her, for collectors:
-
ig story
-
Womens Secret
-
ig story christenharper_60607807_2171182263193598_4312948636080956754_n.mp4
Leonisa: backup
Lanasia IG story: lanasia_official_60466502_141454270306885_9123369531336984664_n.mp4
Markets and capitalism are not the same thing. The former is many centuries older. Corporations are younger still. The difference between a collective and a corporation like SI is that in the former hypothetical, the models and photographers would also be owners. It's a significant difference that's extremely important to the left. If nobody else cares or notices, that's fine, but no leftist on the planet will ever be convinced it's the same thing. Business is their prime purpose and they're very bad at it. But you're right that I shouldn't write off their motivations as entirely insincere just because I've identified them as corporate liberals. All media are biased, including (indeed, I'd argue, especially) the allegedly neutral "understanding stuff" sources. My point is that corporate media is biased in a specific and predictable way that has consequences for SISE's editorial decisions. Please don't erase the specific example I used, it was an airbrushed 19-year old Nina Agdal. This is not a human that actually exists. That is what I was saying was, I think correctly, criticized for going "too far in promoting unrealistic standards of beauty." If there's something to be said in favor of the 2019 edition, it's that the photos of Lais Ribeiro actually look like Lais Ribeiro. In any case, the "aesthetic canon" is socially determined. "Desirable" women in Renaissance paintings did not have figures like Hannah Ferguson or complexions like Lauren Mellor. __________________ That said, I don't wanna dominate this discussion. I know my views on politics aren't popular 'round here, and I'd rather not get in too deep. I have pictures to gawk at and gifs to make.
Probably. They might think that it's too late for subtlety, their brand, nay their entire concept was (and despite their efforts, still is) seriously compromised among Liberals. But honestly the simplest and, in my view, likeliest explanation is that being subtle is actually hard, and MJ et al. aren't up to that challenge. Edit: This is unavoidably true, and it's implicit in their new approach that they think it is a corrective to encourage readers to objectify a wider variety of women. If they were more honest and competent, it seems obvious to me that they should have gone another direction and started objectifying conventionally attractive men, too. Sure that would annoy some folks, but probably fewer of them, and along less contested political lines. People frustrated by hot guys in their girlie mag, and people concerned with the lingering imbalance due to patriarchy would both be mad, but those people are not the same and don't even talk to each other.
As I said in my post a few pages back, media liberals. "The left" isn't a monolith and has a great deal of different takes on whether "looking at media of conventionally attractive women" is good, bad, or neutral. What most of them agree on is that it's not great for that to be commodified and sold by capital. So even if they're in the "ogle Sarah Stephens, it's fine" camp, they're not going to go out of their way to buy SI, nor are they likely to give SISE any credit for "representation," since that's largely a liberal goal, particularly if that's all they're doing. The left cares about power structures, and nothing SI has done suggests they have even reconsidered the implications of a corporate-owned magazine dictating what beauty ought to be. Now if they want to become a swimsuit lady collective owned and operated by the models and photographers, then some on the left might give it a second look, and in fact even encourage people to pay for it. You don't see as many critiques of, say, the Suicide Girls among left wingers for largely this reason. Rank and file Liberals are as diverse as the left, but might be more inclined to accept the SISE's approach to inclusion if they haven't already decisively determined it's just a lads' mag with delusions of grandeur. If I had to venture a guess, those Liberals who paid attention to the content of the magazine at all probably condemned it during MJ's "go nuts with the airbrushing" era, which reached a peak in 2011 or so if I recall correctly. When you've broken out Photoshop to make Nina Agdal's body even more perfect then yeah, maybe you did go too far in promoting unrealistic standards of beauty; and Liberals who actually remember this (and most do, if only vaguely) will see the current edition as desperate. They might argue, with some justification, that the same editorial team who thought the 2011 photos were good is definitely ill-equipped to even do justice to their more recent approach. What makes media (read: corporate) liberals different is they're the ones whose views on what you conservative lot (this is by far the most right-wing forum I willingly read in my free time) call "PC" or social justice are actually insincere and calculated, rather than deriving from genuinely-held moral principles. Their cynicism permits them to ignore the obvious contradictions in the very concept of a woke titty mag. Their aim isn't to "shove PC down your throats," their aim is to thread the needle between Liberals and the right (Edit: they don't know what the left is, and wouldn't care about us if they did), so they can sell magazines to as many people as possible. They want to have their cake and eat it too, which infuriates Liberals, but just makes leftists tell them, "we told you so." (Which also infuriates Liberals, so they're gonna vote for Joe Biden to get back at us).
.jpg.2d3f62b56ced45126efcad7db072ca81.jpg)
.jpg.22dd675b24334f3db3fd1e964ebfacc1.jpg)
.jpg.ed69bb835890dee708895740e037fdb1.jpg)
.jpg.a8098eb478f71613e31d0d38e1ac3b5a.jpg)
.jpg.0f1e22a2724ca2b2e5c72837190aee73.jpg)
Account
Search
Configure browser push notifications
Chrome (Android)
- Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
- Tap Permissions → Notifications.
- Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
- Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
- Select Site settings.
- Find Notifications and adjust your preference.
Safari (iOS 16.4+)
- Ensure the site is installed via Add to Home Screen.
- Open Settings App → Notifications.
- Find your app name and adjust your preference.
Safari (macOS)
- Go to Safari → Preferences.
- Click the Websites tab.
- Select Notifications in the sidebar.
- Find this website and adjust your preference.
Edge (Android)
- Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
- Tap Permissions.
- Find Notifications and adjust your preference.
Edge (Desktop)
- Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
- Click Permissions for this site.
- Find Notifications and adjust your preference.
Firefox (Android)
- Go to Settings → Site permissions.
- Tap Notifications.
- Find this site in the list and adjust your preference.
Firefox (Desktop)
- Open Firefox Settings.
- Search for Notifications.
- Find this site in the list and adjust your preference.