Disembodied Limbs

Posted: June 26, 2011 in Porn

I can’t get this image out of my head. I keep going back to it to try and work out what the guy is holding. My perverse imagination has decided it is part of a body the delicious model has recently dismembered.

Any other ideas?

Comments
  1. But where is the foot?

  2. David Casson says:

    Yes, it’s a knee.

    I think it’s just making sexual objectification vivid.

  3. billsnshits says:

    Take it in any image editing program you have, the cheapest one should do, and rotate and flip it.

    If you flip it left to right, it looks more like he’s being held between white legs, of which you see only one.
    If you put it upside down, it looks like the white leg is carrying him.

    Maybe it’s also trying to look like a magic white man’s tree-trunk-cock, that he’s embracing.

    Why is it that skin photography of men is so much more interactively sexual than skin photography of women, which is all isolating or posing or admiring? Is it feminism’s influence on “male gaze”?

    • I have rotated it and I still can’t see the rest of the leg. are you all pulling my leg?😀

      • billsnshits says:

        No, no, it just “seems” like there’s a leg supporting him, you don’t SEE it, you FEEL it. At least, I do.

        • I still think it could be a photo-shop gone wrong. it was used as an example of an image that came up on a random google search.

          • billsnshits says:

            It could be. But it’s still perfectly recognizable either as a purposeful framing of body part fetish or the generally perplexing framing of a lot of pro photography. It isn’t just porn that will inexplicably frame “sex” as mainly an awkward hairy ass shot. Tell a photographer they have to zoom in and not just snap head to toe…and it’ll often be unsatisfying or confusing. This at least isn’t unsatisfying. Although it is confusing.

    • typhonblue says:

      Because sex is animalistic and men are allowed to have that gritty, dirty animal glow while women have to look as non-sexual and antiseptically flawless as possible. Women’s egos will accept nothing less.

      I’ve always wondered that about male heterosexuality; their visual triggers are about as far from actual mammalian sex as humanly possible without getting into pin ups of beings made of pure energy or entities from the astral planes or aliens composed of silica or something.

      It’s so curiously, so resolutely, so utterly… asexual.

      • typhonblue says:

        Of course I have the same complaint about Yaoi fans. They are obsessed with sexless, hairless, poreless skinny teen boys.

        Sex is supposed to be humbling in it’s awkward messiness, not aesthetically pleasing.

      • Jim says:

        “…their visual triggers are about as far from actual mammalian sex…”

        Visual triggers? Well there’s the problem right there. Mammalian sex is about scent.

        “Women’s egos will accept nothing less.”

        Indeed. The only acceptable scent comes out of $70/oz bottles.

  4. billsnshits says:

    But I as it is I agree it looks like a dismembered body part he’s carrying off like a trophy.

    I think it’s part of our perceptual arrogance. We always think we see the whole story, even when it’s obvious there’s information missing. Which makes for quick-on-the-draw reactions that always seem prejudiced and ignorant to anyone who knows the rest of the story.

    So the original photographer and model are probably thinking “you just don’t get it, dummy”.
    I bet their original intent was interracial erotics. But it comes across as a minor point in this cropping.
    When someone is fragmented, they lose their “race”.

    • yes. I think a lot of porn these days de-humanises everyone to an extreme point. so arguing over ‘men’ and ‘women’ is kind of irrrelevant. Pornography doesn’t even care about ‘people’.

  5. billsnshits says:

    You mean to say you don’t visually recognize it as a knee on top of a shin, with the calf muscle under his fingers?

    I’ve been staring at my scrawny calf muscles all yesterday in dissatisfaction and then checking out images of athlete’s calf muscles to compare, so I’m attuned to the shape.

    Here’s something I hadn’t imagined: most strong, big, tough, athletic men’s legs, entirely, not just the calf, suck ass. Unless you’re a steroid popping body builder, you can’t get that comic book superhero look of “recognizable” leg muscles. A superfit, pump free, drug free leg usually is like a toothpick. It’s all the sheet of fat that makes a leg seem nice and even, on either sex.
    Which, here’s the kick, is why all the photos of sexy men you’ve been pointing to try to photograph them from the butt up. If they do show the legs, the legs are always lying on a bed to squeeze the meat wider for the lens or their framed to create illusions of even lines.

    It’s especially hard because a healthy trim person looks even more insect-like than a reedy bean pole. We’re like a torso box, with little mosquito lines projecting. Look at how meaty and wonderful the black man’s chest seems, like succulent chicken, while the leg he holds is a just a chicken bone and it’s surely no worse than what he’s standing on.

    Here, of course, they’ve tried to adjust the same way. The shin in isolation, with the calf squeezed out wide.

    Truly, these images create impossible demands.

    • on my screen it looks like under his hand is just his chest. It is dark. The limb is white. I just see the knee then the hand, then what looks like his chest.

      • billsnshits says:

        Okay,then maybe increase the brightness of your screen or of the image in your image program. You should clearly see beneath his hand (WRT the image, not “beneath” as inside his palm) the continuation of the shin. Because the “white” shin is in the shadow of his hand, it looks gray and doesn’t contrast to his shining “black” chest that much. So the the falling valley of shadow on his black chest seems like it’s between two big pecs. It’s actually pec on the right side and the line of the leg on the left side.

        Maybe you have terrible vision and need glasses, too. This could be a wake up call to see the optometrist.

        • billsnshits says:

          Increase the brightness and/or the contrast. One of the great joys of internet photos is that fashion shots that seemed to put a sexy lady in pure shadow at certain intimate zones are not all that perfect a shadow. So increasing brightness/contrast will turn perfectly respectable fashion shots into hardcore skin mag pornography.

        • Thanks Bill.

          ha that would be a weird way to find out about my eyesight.

          It’s ok I got it the sun was streaming in the window which didn’t help!

          I see the shin. I think I just got a bit carried away by the idea of a disembodied knee.

          I may go for an eye test just to make sure though. But I won’t tell them why…

  6. Also I have spent sooo long lately staring at images of pecs I think that is what I expect to see! I have been Metrosexied over.

    • billsnshits says:

      Do you know how oddly unholistic is the visual obsession with the chest?!
      I wonder if women don’t have their own not-gay-just-looking issues. If men are programmed to look at boobs then maybe women are too. But they can’t stare at boobs without being gay so they stare at plump pecs. And guys can’t stare at boobs without being creeps so they stare at plump pecs, pretending it’s the mirror.

      Have you noticed how hard it is to find a decent leg? It doesn’t look so bad on skinny models because the barrel of their torso is so tiny anyway that the proportions seem reasonable. But so-called hot men, be they david beckam or mike tyson or any movie star, tend to look like a wooden wine casket with thin stilts walking them along. And there’s very little they can do about it, except strike the right posture to hide it.

      • yes tits are tits whoever they belong to.

        But I think men look at their own and other men’s quite unashamedly these days, for their own sake. not out of shame of looking at women’s.

        Rugby players often have good legs.

        • billsnshits says:

          Maybe I have too much of a “marvel’s the amazing spider man” expectation of legs but to me:

          the blue guy’s red shins are pathetic, and they’re already benefitting from some safety padding in the sock. The others just have a strange angle so you don’t “judge” harshly.


          An outrageously fashionable metrosexual rugby-cum-chippendale outfit is ruined by short (and admittedly fatter, fuller, well defined) legs that turn into peg leg sticks the closer you get to the foot.


          They have the best legs of this crop of photos. And they STILL have the torso-casket-on-top-of-sticks effect.


          Even D&G have chicken shrimp calves. And these guys are flexing ! And it looks better because there are so many legs, they start to seem collectively massive.
          If it were a picture of just their legs or just their torsos, it would still look better.

          Of course, all of their legs are better than mine. So maybe I’m trying to “devalue men’s legs” subconsciously.

          Maybe as woman, you like the idea of men’s legs being thinner than their torsos. Makes for a kind of sexual vulnerability. In the same way “men” (I guess!) seem to like bigger boobs hanging off a thinner female torso, for the physical/sexual vulnerability it suggests (without having to go so far as artificial pneumaticism).

          But think of how good calf-tight jeans look. It’s because the bottom of the leg stays wide, while suggesting muscularity by how tightly it holds just under the knee (for someone with good calves). Only fat legs can do that without jeans. Everyone else just looks like pork-peg or frog legs, at best.

          I hope I’ve made you eternally dissatisfied with legs, for the sin of thinking a photo involved mutilation of those same.

  7. billsnshits says:

    Well, I see the rest of the shin and it makes me think of the black guy as a crusader and the white guy as a muslim, the black crusader carrying his conquered victim’s sword-fight-amputated leg along the beach.
    His face just looks like the perfect “young/honorable/sexy black man face” that you’d see in hollywood crusader movies today. Like it would be denzel washington or a clone you’ve never heard of (like all the sexier actors today, in 300 or something).

    • apparently 300 is very homo-erotic. I like how you don’t know the gender of the limb. But it looks like a woman’s knee to me.

      • billsnshits says:

        Hairlessness. When you say it, it makes me see a “female” knee. But I just assumed it’s man’s leg b/c, as I said, there’s usu. more “interaction” between men in photography than between men and women, outside of straight porn.

        Take the hair off a man and much of his body can easily substitute a woman’s.

  8. Porky D says:

    The bit against his cheek is the knee, his hand is covering the calf, the foot is off screen.

  9. Isis says:

    Its obviously a deformed penis…I think this image is apt (for one reason or another): http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1293328492281_8916871.png

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s