Attn. David
David doesn't let people put comments on his blog and I don't have his screen name, so now I must use my blog as a messenger service:
What's not that surprising? The back thing? The creepy doctor thing? All of the above? After more thought on the subject, none of it is all that surprising really. Aggrivating, but not really surprising. But I'm not quite sure what you're talking about...so explain, please? Since when do you use so few words when expressing an opinion?! It's really quite incredible....
posted by Robin @ 6:22 PM
1 Comments:
My sn is canis ex machina--I'm sure matt/philippe/miles/mari would have been willing to tell you.
Anyway, I meant that it doesn't surprise me that showing your back was considered inappropriately revealing. I don't know what you were wearing, bu a lot of things I see on young women in this day and age show a lot of back even all the way down to the lumbar region (which is erotic in its own right, as with those winglike tattoos) and suggesting the butt.
A little hypothesizing. The back is very anatomically revealing. I won't try to define the eroticism of the scapulae, spine and back of the neck, but anyway they are three things that are "private" from a certain point of view. There is very little suggestion of them when one is covered up with clothes, i.e. they are not part of the unanatomical, generalized "figure," the surface physique--although the scapulae do tend to "poke out," which just makes my answer easier.
The other obvious answer is just that you are showing skin that is part of your torso and not unusually concealed by a garment. So that unusual garment draws attention. No matter what anyone thinks of the female back, the specific essence of its abnormality is the garment's exposure of female skin.
This was fun for me to think about.
Post a Comment
<< Home