Moobs banned

[Scooter]

Your problem is that we have read them and you haven't, not even the ones you have chosen to post, because they are so clearly saying the opposite of what you have invented in your own mind.

Let's review, shall we?

Crop off his head with your hand and you have a very clear male body.

Since you appear to have missed that one, they even repeat it for you:

he is still obviously a man

If his ribs weren't visible, it could be an abercrombie (or any other chain that doesn't necessarily require its models to have a six pack) ad.

Know of many prepubscent girl models who are judged suitable for an ad based on whether or not they have a six pack?

Next one:

a boy with a prepubescent body

Did you catch that one? A BOY with a prepubscent body. Not a girl. A boy.

Boy...girl...boy...girl...boy... Getting the difference yet?

Because he looks like a prepubescent girl

Oh wow, you got me. One comment out of 45 posts on the topic where an anonymous poster on some blog agrees with you. How could anyone possibly not be convinced after that?

Whatever’s next? A thin male model in a wedding gown? Someone who looks like a Klingon, only with make-up slapped on more artistically? Oops! I’d almost forgotten Andrej Pejic and Andre J.

Um, comparing someone to a Klingon in makeup is supposed to equate to prepubescent girl? Do you come from a family with a lot of exceptionally ugly girls, which might give this comparison some sense? (Uh, on second thought, no, it wouldn't even at that.)

So Andrej Pejic is being sexualized--or worse, fetishized--as a woman.

See that last word there? A woman, not a prepubescent girl.

Woman...girl...woman...girl...woman.... Getting it yet?

Was it the army that taught you how to hit the target so exactly when you keep shooting yourself in the foot over and over?



(edited because I missed one of the way-wide-of-the-mark quotes on the first pass)

[Sean]

Oh that. Even your favorite tabloid agrees with me;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... woman.html

So you are using as evidence a newspaper which you have continuously tried to discredit and which doesn't use the word 'pre-pubescent' anywhere in it's article? In fact it uses the word 'woman' as the other article did.

Muppet!

[loCAtek]

Gee Scooter, I was asked if someone agreed with me, not everyone. It's art, and I understand everyone has their interpretations of it. For instance, I do like the photography, and enjoy the lighting and shadows. (It's coming up almost black and white on my old screen, but the gradations of light still appear) His face, is the popular look these days; however I can't say I'm attracted to that, as I'm not into Vampire chic like some.

Obviously, if the magazine went out and explicitly stated his look was a prepubescent female, then they would have to ban it as kiddie porn. By blurring the definition of 'womanly' they could keep the magazine on the stands, but womanly is usually used so:

Definition: voluptuous
Antonyms: boyish

I think we can agree his figure is not voluptuous.

Yes, I added this , just thought of it. His figure is very boyish, but by portraying himself as feminine, he makes himself girlish.

[Scooter]

Gee Scooter, I was asked if someone agreed with me, not everyone.

So you found one person out of 7,000,000,000 on the planet who agreed with you. Hurray. Want a cookie?

It's art, and I understand everyone has their interpretations of it.

Then don't insist on turning their interpretations on their heads in order to pretend they agree with yours, as you attempted to do with almost every quote you posted.

Obviously, if the magazine went out and explicitly stated his look was a prepubescent female, then they would have to ban it as kiddie porn.

So once again, far from "everyone has their interpretations" you are claiming to have crawled into the minds of the creators of the ad and know that they intended it to look like a prepubescent female.

And no, saying that they were going for the look of a prepubescent female would not have gotten it labelled as kiddie porn. Using an underage model. or purporting the model to be underage would be the requirement for that, IF the photo was deemed to be pornographic in itself. I have yet to see any evidence that a topless, otherwise nonsexual photo would even qualify, regardless of the age of the subject.

By blurring the definition of 'womanly' they could keep the magazine on the stands, but womanly is usually used so:

Definition: voluptuous
Antonyms: boyish

And here you are just as guilty of trying to pigeonhole all women into one type as those magazine editors who popularized the anorexic heroin user look.

[BoSoxGal]

I was a prepubescent female once. At the time, I hung around with a lot of other prepubescent females. We changed in front of each other daily in the school locker room (this was back in the day when PE was still required).

None of us looked like that dude. Sorry.

[loCAtek]

My sister modeled for a while, and a cousin was a second place Miss New Mexico in the Miss America pagent in the seventies. His make-up is womanly, he is not.

[BoSoxGal]

Neither is his Adam's apple that of a pre-pubescent female. Really, anybody who thinks that photo needs to be censored in any way is, IMNSHO, pathologically prudish.

[The Hen]

It is his hair and makeup that is confusing people. (It doesn't take much to confuse some people apparently.)

I am a mother. Hatch has never looked like he does when she was naked as a prepubescent girl.

If you know someone with a young daughter that looks like this man does when topless, get her to a doctor. It is not natural for a girl, despite what a small percentage of confused bloggers might think.

[Rick]

Mantits...

[Sean]

By blurring the definition of 'womanly' they could keep the magazine on the stands, but womanly is usually used so:

Definition: voluptuous
Antonyms: boyish

I think we can agree his figure is not voluptuous.

I think you need to get a new dictionary. The ones I have define 'womanly' as 'feminine' with 'masculine' as an antonym.

Or maybe that was pulled out of your arse too...
Care to cite me the source of your definitions?

[The Hen]

I am not (by any stretch of the imagination) a voluptuous woman.

I am not boyish either.

Am I pre-pubescent girl?

[Sean]

Obviously.

Is Strop at work? The AFP want to know where they can pick him up for questioning...

[Crackpot]

Don't you have child labor laws Down Under?


Savages.

[The Hen]

A pre-pubescent girl's work is NEVER done!

[loCAtek]

Dictionary.com

[loCAtek]

It is his hair and makeup that is confusing people.

Exactly, His body is male until you attach his face to it. Then the compromise is to say he's neither male nor female; which is what prepubescent or androgynous is; consisting of neither gender entirely.
However,t we primarily identify a person with their face, and since his is feminine, his prepubescent/androgynous body is therefore girlish.

More accurately, he should be considered womanish, rather than womanly, but that has a derogatory association to it so, I can see why a more socially acceptable label was sought, in order to sell magazines.

Is it no surprise that a thin frame, is known as a 'girlish' one, rather than womanly one?

[Scooter]

I see. His body is clearly that of a male, therefore he looks like a prepubescent girl. Thanks, that SO makes it clear (not).

And Here is the dictionary entry for "womanly" on Dictionary.com
Here is the thesaurus entry.

Care to direct us to where the word "voluptious" appears in either of those?

[loCAtek]

If you know someone with a young daughter that looks like this man does when topless, get her to a doctor. It is not natural for a girl, despite what a small percentage of confused bloggers might think.

Which begs the question: then why is a feminized man modeling women's clothes? Women naturally cannot achieve such low body fat; not ever since they were girls. Without being able to turn back the clock, woman are driven to surgery, disorders and malnourishment to achieve such looks.

[loCAtek]

I see. His body is clearly that of a male, therefore he looks like a prepubescent girl. Thanks, that SO makes it clear (not).

Look at the whole photo figure, then. Which is what I said. His body is male until you attach his face to it

And Here is the dictionary entry for "womanly" on Dictionary.com
Here is the thesaurus entry.

Care to direct us to where the word "voluptious" appears in either of those?

More specifically go here; http://www.answers.com/topic/womanly

[Sean]

Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner!

Exactly, His body is male until you attach his face to it. Then the compromise is to say he's neither male nor female; which is what prepubescent or androgynous is; consisting of neither gender entirely.
However,t we primarily identify a person with their face, and since his is feminine, his prepubescent/androgynous body is therefore girlish.

That is the most jaw-droppingly insane, ridiculous, uneducated, retarded, inane piece of drivel I have ever read from a person purporting to be an adult.

Congratulations Lo, you have just won the internet!

The rest of us might as well pack up and go home. This world wide web has just jumped the shark.