lady_t_220 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lady_t_220) wrote2005-05-04 11:36 am
lady_t_220) wrote2005-05-04 11:36 am
Continuing the theme of gratuitous Hugh body-parts...
It is, after all Wednesday. A once-weekly even known as Hump-Day and in honour of that (for who am I to break with tradition?) I'm sure it won't take much thinking to work out the theme of today's gratuitous body-parts.
Feet!
You could say that we're quite horribly objectifying the poor man by staring so rabidly at
only the component parts of his very lovely physical form. But I say in all fairness, it's not objectifying any
more or less so than has occurred though thousands of generations of
selective breeding, a biological phenomenon wherein only the most diesireable
specimens were successful in continuing their genetic lineage. This pattern of behaviour
continues even down to our closest genetic cousins and the only
major difference in biological imperative is the complication added by our attempt to rationalise the most basic of
selective functions into a quagmire of socio-political correctness. An event which
some would say conspires to go against biology and
force commonly-held social perception into believeing that it's
unaceptable behaviour to be sitting here just staring at his knob.
...personally I never did give much of a damn for social acceptability.
Plus a bad case of celebrity camel-toe should always be shared, if only for the entertainment value.
*wanders off to be unacceptable elsewhere* ;)
Feet!
You could say that we're quite horribly objectifying the poor man by staring so rabidly at
only the component parts of his very lovely physical form. But I say in all fairness, it's not objectifying any
more or less so than has occurred though thousands of generations of
selective breeding, a biological phenomenon wherein only the most diesireable
specimens were successful in continuing their genetic lineage. This pattern of behaviour
continues even down to our closest genetic cousins and the only
major difference in biological imperative is the complication added by our attempt to rationalise the most basic of
selective functions into a quagmire of socio-political correctness. An event which
some would say conspires to go against biology and
force commonly-held social perception into believeing that it's
unaceptable behaviour to be sitting here just staring at his knob.
...personally I never did give much of a damn for social acceptability.
Plus a bad case of celebrity camel-toe should always be shared, if only for the entertainment value.
*wanders off to be unacceptable elsewhere* ;)
no subject
no subject
Damn this country need a krispy kreme. Preferably near here.
no subject