For those of us not well-versed in office furniture, what is the significance of an Eames chair?
Thank you for asking that, ita. I was just about to ask, myself.
That particular chair is one of the most famous of midcentury furniture designs: [link].
Huh.
I hate the moniker "tramp stamp" for a lower-back tattoo. (1) Because women's lower backs are lovely, and a well-done tattoo looks fantastic there. (2) *I* have a lower-back tattoo, and I got it to cover up my surgery scar -- it has *nothing* to do with providing decoration for all the guys to whom my tattoo says "Fuck me in the ass!!!"
(Seriously, *do* guys really think that's what a woman's lower-back tattoo means?)
Some other classic furniture design tattoos: [link]
ETA: he's a furniture design major: [link]
what's the point of (even nice) furniture tattooed on one's body.
Maybe it'd be cool if it was some anthropomorphisized furniture, running into battle while holding a sword over its head.
Hmmm... couldn't find any such images on google....
*do* guys really think that's what a woman's lower-back tattoo means?
From what I can tell, even if it doesn't mean that, it makes many guys think that. However, I have not been able to discern what else (like, say, just seeing a woman from behind) makes these same guys think that too.
I think the furniture tats are going to remain in the "okay, whatever" realm for me. They're too...I don't know. I don't think they look nice, and the jump to meaning is too far for me to make with the wearer.
I don't expect anyone else to dig my tat, so it's not a condemnation of any sort.
What is "Raunch Culture" and why does it get capitalized?
I was just going to ask that, tommy!
The origins of the term:
Men, you can relax. You are no longer the enemy. Instead, judging by recent events in America, modern feminists have a much shapelier target in their sights - other women. Specifically, scantily clad women who use their sexuality to get ahead. I don't know if this is a PR campaign to get men to finally pay attention to the cause, but it's certainly stirring up trouble.
It all kicked off with the publication of Female Chauvinist Pigs, a rant against "raunch culture" by the New York magazine writer Ariel Levy. In the book, she argues that the recent trend for soft-porn styling in everything from music videos to popular TV is reducing female sexuality to its basest levels. In short: "A tawdry, tarty, cartoon-like version of female sexuality has become so ubiquitous, it no longer seems particular."
Which is all fair enough, until Levy starts to list the ways in which today's women are allowing their sexuality to be sold short. Thongs, for example. Crop tops. Lap-dancing classes. Maxim and FHM. Playboy T-shirts. The word "chick". Levy thinks raunch culture is a feminist movement gone terribly wrong. We are, in her eyes, doing all these things merely to show the men that we are "one of the guys" and "liberated and rebellious". Naturally, she finds this confusing. "Why is labouring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering?"
eta: The rest of the article argues against Ariel Levy and other critics of "raunch culture".
[link]
Urf. I have sleep deprivation cancer this morning.
