>> |
Ehhh.....
File :-(, x)
>>937550 If you're defining "maleness" by sex, then you're well within your right, I suppose, to consider the figures in question male. On the other hand, as they are merely that, ie, figures drawn on paper, and moreover are not clearly indicative of anything that exists in the real world, there is no reason to assume, outside of preference, that they are either female or male, since, as unreal and unrealistic figures, they have no sex.
If, on the other hand, you consider it through gender, then we must turn to the viewer's perspective, in which case we should investigate the signals which would cause us to perceive the figure as either male or female.
We find almost immediately that, overwhelmingly, the signals point to female. The face shape, torso, hips, and essentially the entire body, sans the genitalia, alert us to what is familiarly female. Given a view of the subject with the genitalia out of sight, there is little question that many heterosexual men would feel attraction toward any of the given illustrated figures. Certainly, the genitalia are a large determinant factor of the final decision of most humans in calling the subject either male or female, but the familiarity of the female shape impresses upon our subconscious, and our perception, a distinctly female tone. One can decide to call something anything one wishes, of course, but what seems more important in the end to how we deal with the individual in questionbe they fantasy, as with these illustrations, or a convincing transexual (if such a thing can be said to exist), or any number of other thingswhat seems more important are the initial perceptions received prior to conscious processing.
Also, porn.
|