HOME | DD

dafnalj In reply to DistortedSmile [2013-11-02 11:33:02 +0000 UTC]

Thank you. Very flattered.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ayby In reply to PreussenSauce [2013-10-17 04:40:04 +0000 UTC]

exactly and sexy..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SAVALISTE In reply to cassannder [2013-10-19 12:29:38 +0000 UTC]

It's not objectification.. but then again that word can be used in a matter of opinion. But to tell you yes there are plenty of male DD's like this

It has nothing to do with men or women I am female and I like this shot artistically that is why I suggested this particular photograph...you just don't see the beauty or artistic-ness that is why you just piss on it shouting "objectified"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dafnalj In reply to cassannder [2013-10-17 08:14:18 +0000 UTC]

If you have a problem with images that make DD or rather, the reasoning behind it please do take it up with them.
I am personally holding up a belief that there is aesthetic component to everything and have shot with men as well as women which you may see here, if interested: www.dafnaljubotina.com/portfol…
Thank you. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ConstableMerle In reply to cassannder [2013-10-17 05:17:23 +0000 UTC]

The objectification issue aside, why did a post from two years ago get a DD now? Or am I missing something here? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SAVALISTE In reply to ConstableMerle [2013-10-19 12:20:06 +0000 UTC]

DD's do not have to be new.. if that were the case then that would mean all art that isn't new isn't worthy of a DD?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ConstableMerle In reply to SAVALISTE [2013-10-22 06:27:55 +0000 UTC]

No, but digging back two years suggests that the newer contributions don't make the grade. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SAVALISTE In reply to ConstableMerle [2013-10-22 06:31:40 +0000 UTC]

yea true.. or also maybe their new stuff is good too but if you have the new stuff get a DD right away then they usually don't feature older stuff after a newest ones has been featured... meh

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dafnalj In reply to ConstableMerle [2013-10-18 10:12:48 +0000 UTC]

Beats me. I had the same question.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BondageStorm In reply to cassannder [2013-10-17 01:20:28 +0000 UTC]

Art was a concept created by humanity millions of years ago. And this concept has changed as our history moved foward. One of the most important events in art, was the reinnasence. This period has changed the concept of art for humanity to a way even today the concept of art is marked by it, even if the reinasence itself is old by now. It was a movement dominated by man, as everything in the middle age, and they were looking to represent on art the most beautifull forms and shapes. And they always based themselves on the female body. Always, even on images that do not show her, even if the artist didnt do it counsiously. Everything on art is a testimony of female beauty: the curves, soft and organic shapes, lightness and softness on the colors and small details of brightness, all that represents a beautifull painting, sculpture, or picture, is in fact a representation of female itself.

So no, this isnt an "obejtification" of a woman, its a shrine, to praise all that men find beautifull about female, their softness, lightness, small spots of brightness on the skin perfectly matching the light of the room. Art is, and will always be, a she, even if there isnt a woman in the canvas.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Debinoresu In reply to cassannder [2013-10-17 00:07:52 +0000 UTC]

This isn't objectification, this is admiration of her beauty and the elegance of what she's wearing. Objectification of women is trying to pass off women as nothing but a sex object, and that's not what I'm seeing here. There IS a difference between art and objectification. 

wizbangpop.com/images/2010/07/… THAT is objectification. 

blog.daniellesonnenberg.com/wp… THAT Is objectification.

images.soulpancake.s3.amazonaw… Objectification!

THIS is not objectification. It is not trying to make women appear as nothing but sex objects, but rather flaunt their beauty and elegance.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ConstableMerle In reply to Debinoresu [2013-10-17 08:02:40 +0000 UTC]

These examples of objectification (at least, the first two ) are literal objectification, where the body is simply the venue for the message. In this case, the issue is of sexual objectification, where a woman's body IS the message, and that of a primarily male response to stimulus. Like Pavlov's dogs, we salivate. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

reila07 In reply to cassannder [2013-10-16 23:50:49 +0000 UTC]

It's annoying :\ but some say it's just becuase women's bodies are more suited for that kind of thing. both are objectified, it just happens that women are in a far more annoying way .__. which doesn't mean it's good. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0