Althouse: Woman and sculpture.

February 18, 2007

Woman and sculpture.

A sexual relationship:

28 comments:

Mortimer Brezny said...: I'm still not getting how this is sexual. She's fully clothed and not well-positioned for entry.; 2/18/07, 5:04 PM
The Bearded Professor said...: Mortimer: Look again. Notice where the left-most tip of the sculpture is in relation to the woman.

[And feel free to delete this comment for it's lasciviousness; I would.]; 2/18/07, 5:53 PM
Mortimer Brezny said...: Oh, I see. Well, that sculpture isn't particularly phallic and she isn't on her knees.; 2/18/07, 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/18/07, 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like a pregnant woman contemplating a pickle.; 2/18/07, 7:11 PM
Mortimer Brezny said...: Yes, I think this photograph says more about the photographer's disinterest in the guy blotted out by the wall, which explains why she blotted him out instead of stepping to the left. :); 2/18/07, 7:49 PM
Simon said...: Mortimer Brezny said...
"...says more about the photographer's disinterest in the guy blotted out by the wall"

Lack of interest. Uninterested and disinterested aren't synonyms, despite common practise to the contary. She isn't disinterested in him.; 2/18/07, 7:56 PM
Finn Alexander Kristiansen said...: This picture shows that the picture taker has sex on her/his brain.

Because the man is partially blotted out, the picture taker is really telling us that she is not in need of a full fledged relationship, but a man with a sizeable penis that can bring her pleasure.

And, like the woman in the photo, she is in some thought as to whether the choice is correct. The man is not fully out of the picture, which means that deep down the picture taker, whomever it is, still wonders whether a relationship might be worthwhile.

The picture taker has connected with a man, but wonders if it is a short term thing, a fling, or something more meaningful.; 2/18/07, 8:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeez! Do we have to analyze more Althouse photos? She ought to offer a credit course over in the Art Dept.

Or is this a kind of Rorschach test to determine the winner of the Most Sex-Crazed Commenter contest?; 2/18/07, 9:44 PM
Mortimer Brezny said...: 2. not interested; indifferent.

Yeah, my point was exactly that she was indifferent to this guy's existence, so she didn't step left to include him. She also didn't step right to totally exclude him, either. My usage was totally standard. But thanks for trying to bowderlize my speech again, McCain-lover.; 2/18/07, 9:47 PM
Eli Blake said...: Oh, my gosh, Mortimer. You sure handed it to Simon.

"McCain Lover."

I really didn't see anything interesting to comment on here until you said that. But the depth of the insult, I mean my gosh-- I mean all the sexual discussion flying around is, well, ho-hum. But I don't think that anyone could handle being called that.; 2/18/07, 9:55 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Women and sculpture.

. . . a rocky relationship.; 2/18/07, 9:56 PM
Mortimer Brezny said...: LOL.; 2/18/07, 10:18 PM
Mortimer Brezny said...: Out of frame dalliance? It could be an out of frame: "Did you make sure to call the subcontractor about the drywall?"; 2/18/07, 10:34 PM
Eli Blake said...: There are worse places than that for women to think about sex.

There was a story on the (Phoenix) evening news tonight about police writing a woman a ticket after she parked her car in the fast lane on the freeway to have sex with her boyfriend (who was a passenger in the car). The stopped car, together with people gawking, nearly caused several accidents.; 2/19/07, 1:02 AM
hdhouse said...: you all underestimate the intentions of the professor here...and perhaps the object of her lens...assuming the the sculpter is not for sale and wouldn't fit in the overhead bin anyway, perhaps the title should have been "woman OR sculpture" and she simply mis-typed in a fit of lust.; 2/19/07, 6:13 AM
KCFleming said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 2/19/07, 7:19 AM
KCFleming said...: Well, I thought the woman here was pondering the lewd act the sculpture was having with the pedestal.

Where's Camille Paglia when you need her, anyway? This post wantonly begs to be ravished by references to Dionysus and Madonna.; 2/19/07, 7:37 AM
MadisonMan said...: Why did the professor put a space between 'A' and 'sexual' in her comment?; 2/19/07, 8:39 AM
Sixty Bricks said...: She could get on the sculpture.; 2/19/07, 8:39 AM
XWL said...: Art galleries tend to bring out the exhibitionist and voyeur in folks.

All that looking at objects for aesthetic and contextual value tends to place the various breathing, motile and conscious entities parading around the art on exhibit as well.

Anyone who says they go to museums just to look at the art, is probably lying.

So in other words, dress to impress (or at least dress to fulfill your chosen role in whatever part you choose to play as you exhibit yourself), and enjoy the show (and enjoy showing yourself off).; 2/19/07, 12:35 PM
reader_iam said...: Dressed To Kill

Haven't thought of that movie in ages. Netflix!; 2/19/07, 2:12 PM
KCFleming said...: Re; "Anyone who says they go to museums just to look at the art, is probably lying."

Your museums must have a prettier clientele than where I visit. Here in Minnesota, the art is far, far more handsome than the public enjoying it (I count myself here).; 2/19/07, 2:17 PM
Meade said...: Clever, hdhouse.

But if you really want to get her goat, post a video of yourself on YouTube dancing around in short pants.

Just be sure you don't dance like one of those fascist republicans. It has to be a liberal democrat dance... a liberal democrat dancing in short pants.

Then come back here and share the link. She won't be able to help herself -- she'll click on the damn thing and before she knows what's hit her, boom -- completely crazy with wanton lust!

Guaranteed: yours will be the last laugh. And remember -- the shorter the better.; 2/19/07, 2:38 PM
XWL said...: Your museums must have a prettier clientele

I'm in the Los Angeles area, folks you see in most place are going to be prettier than elsewhere (LACMA would be no exception, and they play up the 'meet market' aspect of the museum with their LACMA Muse program).; 2/19/07, 2:53 PM
MadisonMan said...: I'm in the Los Angeles area, folks you see in most place are going to be prettier than elsewhere

Riiiight. In addition, it never rains in California.; 2/19/07, 3:21 PM
hdhouse said...: wow meade..that must have been some score.; 2/19/07, 10:17 PM
Eli Blake said...: xwl and madison man:

I'm not from Southern California, and have no desire to live there. I am from a neighboring state and go there fairly often for vacations and to visit relatives.

In fact, if we measure beauty by 'traditional' measures, xwl is right. Women in southern California are more attractive-- they have better figures, are noticeably thinner (in general) than women in other places and have that natural suntanned look.

But then beauty is also skin deep. Southern California is also the capitol of vanity. Many, if not most of them have 'great figures' because of multiple surgeries, the 'natural look' is the result of a ton of cash spent on everything from electrolysis to cosmetics, and the thinness is of the unnatural variety, often being created by an anorexic lifestyle combined perhaps with more surgery.

So yeah, xwl has a point-- but only if you just look at the surface. A man who wants lust rather than love would do very well living in southern California (and plenty of them do).; 2/19/07, 11:24 PM