If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   This just in: The women depicted in Fantasy and Sci-fi art are drawn often in such a way that it almost seems like adolescent males are the target market or something   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 269
    More: Obvious, target markets, book cover, romantic interest, fantasy literature, female characters, original work, sexisms, beauties  
•       •       •

5103 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jan 2013 at 10:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-18 01:23:17 PM  
Oh, the poor wommenz. Always the weak victim.
 
2013-01-18 01:23:55 PM  
The skimpy clothes are a little annoying. The completely impractical armor they usually put them in is much more annoying to me. That said, he really not helping with those pics. When I see them I don't reconsider my vies on sexism, I wonder how drunk he was when he decided it was a good idea to dress-up like a chick and imitate book covers, without even shaving.
 
2013-01-18 01:25:14 PM  
Actually, I'd like to revise my earlier statement and just repeat this one, in its entirety.

i115.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-18 01:29:04 PM  

Oerath: The skimpy clothes are a little annoying. The completely impractical armor they usually put them in is much more annoying to me. That said, he really not helping with those pics. When I see them I don't reconsider my vies on sexism, I wonder how drunk he was when he decided it was a good idea to dress-up like a chick and imitate book covers, without even shaving.


The armor is always what got to me the most.  Boob armor? Please. That would concentrate a blow to the chest, not deflect it.  The other thing that bothers me is impossible poses, like twisting a woman's spine so much just so they can show off her ass and her chest at the same time.  Hell, a contortionist tried to mimic the pose, and was unable to.
 
2013-01-18 01:31:28 PM  

FightDirector: To be honest, I stopped caring after it was pointed out that it's impossible to draw a sexually appealing woman without being sexist, because being sexually appealing is inherently submitting to the male desires that define sexual appeal (or something similar - the derp level in that class had gotten so far that I sort of zoned out).


Let's be honest... You zoned out long before the class even started.

Plus, you're wrong.
Sexualized:
fc07.deviantart.net

Not sexualized:
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-18 01:32:47 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-18 01:33:08 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: kid_icarus: Well at least women would never idealize men that way...

[i76.photobucket.com image 300x485]

Exactly:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 498x393]


Indeed:
dvdbash.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-18 01:34:33 PM  

Theaetetus: The sexism isn't due to the fact that they're idealized, but due to the differences in power displayed, and the implication that men=power and women=sex.


Sexism is essentially the belief that you can determine things about someone's character from their sex alone. Men=power and women=sex are both stereotypes and are both sexist. You can obviously make an argument for positive vs. negative stereotypes, but saying they're not both sexist is like saying that, "black people steal" is racist, but "all asians are smart" isn't racist.
 
2013-01-18 01:35:44 PM  

Theaetetus: I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: I was always a fan of this one.
[rawrgg.com image 720x377]

Looking at that, I think we can agree that the original idealizes the male body as well...chest, muscles, etc...  So, point of order, it is doubly sexist.

But the way they're idealized is different... Women in fantasy art are frequently posed in submissive or sexualized positions, butt towards the viewer, off balance, etc.:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1267]

Men are posed in dominant positions, balanced, ready for combat, etc .:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x401]

The sexism isn't due to the fact that they're idealized, but due to the differences in power displayed, and the implication that men=power and women=sex.


Ignoring the fact that that woman you linked is hardly "submissive"... it's almost like men and women find different things attractive, as if that were the very basis of heterosexuality. Weird.
 
2013-01-18 01:36:21 PM  

brigid_fitch: The worst offender is Rob Liefeld

[assets.sbnation.com image 185x517]

Dear Rob:  Women have spines.


Hi there!

ft.trillian.im
 
2013-01-18 01:39:49 PM  

NateAsbestos: Theaetetus: I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: I was always a fan of this one.
[rawrgg.com image 720x377]

Looking at that, I think we can agree that the original idealizes the male body as well...chest, muscles, etc...  So, point of order, it is doubly sexist.

But the way they're idealized is different... Women in fantasy art are frequently posed in submissive or sexualized positions, butt towards the viewer, off balance, etc.:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1267]

Men are posed in dominant positions, balanced, ready for combat, etc .:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x401]

The sexism isn't due to the fact that they're idealized, but due to the differences in power displayed, and the implication that men=power and women=sex.

Ignoring the fact that that woman you linked is hardly "submissive"... it's almost like men and women find different things attractive, as if that were the very basis of heterosexuality. Weird.


Ignoring the fact that you don't know what the word "or" means, the woman depicted has her spine twisted so far that a contortionist can't mimic it, all for the purpose of being able to show off her tits and ass at the same time.
 
2013-01-18 01:39:55 PM  

LargeCanine: Oh, for pity's sake. Everyone likes boobs.

Women would be MORE upset if men started ignoring their looks.


It's a vicious trap, isn't it?

"STOP STARING AT MY BOOBS, I have a brain too you brute!"

...

"He never even looks at me! It's like all I do is go to work and earn money and come home, he makes small talk at dinner, and then spends my hard work on beer and TV!"
 
2013-01-18 01:41:54 PM  

rocky_howard: brigid_fitch: The worst offender is Rob Liefeld

[assets.sbnation.com image 185x517]

Dear Rob:  Women have spines.

Hi there!

[ft.trillian.im image 453x700]


While leaving the rest of her body where it is, move her lower back about 6 inches closer to the bed, and then you'd be more accurate to Liefeld 's drawing.
 
2013-01-18 01:42:35 PM  

Theaetetus: I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: I was always a fan of this one.
[rawrgg.com image 720x377]

Looking at that, I think we can agree that the original idealizes the male body as well...chest, muscles, etc...  So, point of order, it is doubly sexist.

But the way they're idealized is different... Women in fantasy art are frequently posed in submissive or sexualized positions, butt towards the viewer, off balance, etc.:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1267]

Men are posed in dominant positions, balanced, ready for combat, etc .:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x401]

The sexism isn't due to the fact that they're idealized, but due to the differences in power displayed, and the implication that men=power and women=sex.


THANK YOU!

Anyone who thinks the argument ends with "Men have muscles/are idealized!" is missing 50% of the point. And it's not JUST how women are posed, but how they're framed in the shot/panel. Sexualization goes FAR beyond mere appearance.
 
2013-01-18 01:44:06 PM  

mgshamster: Ignoring the fact that you don't know what the word "or" means, the woman depicted has her spine twisted so far that a contortionist can't mimic it, all for the purpose of being able to show off her tits and ass at the same time.


My working theory is that they're are all fast rotating action shots and that for some reason, comic artists draw with a rolling shutter.
 
2013-01-18 01:46:34 PM  

mgshamster: rocky_howard: brigid_fitch: The worst offender is Rob Liefeld

[assets.sbnation.com image 185x517]

Dear Rob:  Women have spines.

Hi there!

[ft.trillian.im image 453x700]

While leaving the rest of her body where it is, move her lower back about 6 inches closer to the bed, and then you'd be more accurate to Liefeld 's drawing.


Also, you'll notice that in the natural pose (ie, the photo of the real woman), you can only see one butt cheek and one of her breasts.  In the Liefeld drawing, the woman's spine is twisted so that you can see both butt cheeks and both breasts, while at the same time being able to pop both her ass and chest out.
 
2013-01-18 01:47:44 PM  

mgshamster: Oerath: The skimpy clothes are a little annoying. The completely impractical armor they usually put them in is much more annoying to me. That said, he really not helping with those pics. When I see them I don't reconsider my vies on sexism, I wonder how drunk he was when he decided it was a good idea to dress-up like a chick and imitate book covers, without even shaving.

The armor is always what got to me the most.  Boob armor? Please. That would concentrate a blow to the chest, not deflect it.  The other thing that bothers me is impossible poses, like twisting a woman's spine so much just so they can show off her ass and her chest at the same time.  Hell, a contortionist tried to mimic the pose, and was unable to.


What real boob armor may look like:
www.sol-invictus.org.ukimg.auctiva.com
OTOH what an actual suit of armor worn by a real woman in battle looked like:
cdn.japandailypress.com

You see that short skirt?...totally sexualizing
 
2013-01-18 01:48:44 PM  
i76.photobucket.com

/what headline writer might look like.
 
2013-01-18 01:49:15 PM  

Current Resident: Because People in power are Stupid: kid_icarus: Well at least women would never idealize men that way...

[i76.photobucket.com image 300x485]

Exactly:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 498x393]

Indeed:
[dvdbash.files.wordpress.com image 685x1000]


I'm deeply offended, and even shocked...by that sword.  No true scotsman, or ANY swordsman for that matter would be caught dead using a blade that ridiculous
 
2013-01-18 01:49:18 PM  

NateAsbestos: Theaetetus: I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: I was always a fan of this one.
[rawrgg.com image 720x377]

Looking at that, I think we can agree that the original idealizes the male body as well...chest, muscles, etc...  So, point of order, it is doubly sexist.

But the way they're idealized is different... Women in fantasy art are frequently posed in submissive or sexualized positions, butt towards the viewer, off balance, etc.:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1267]

Men are posed in dominant positions, balanced, ready for combat, etc .:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x401]

The sexism isn't due to the fact that they're idealized, but due to the differences in power displayed, and the implication that men=power and women=sex.

Ignoring the fact that that woman you linked is hardly "submissive"... it's almost like men and women find different things attractive, as if that were the very basis of heterosexuality. Weird.


Huh. Second person who doesn't know the word "or". Did you go to the same school?
 
2013-01-18 01:50:32 PM  

flux: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 800x529]


Ah, Boris Vallejo, the God King of fantasy art. And must not forget about his equally talented wife Julie Bell.
 
2013-01-18 01:51:24 PM  
www.motifake.com
 
2013-01-18 01:53:05 PM  

Ed Grubermann: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 420x640]


Now this panel illustrates the danger of using Male models for a romance book cover, as many of them are gay, as this guy clearly is.  The hot chick is wrapping herself around him, and he's not even looking at her, but staring off into the middle distance with a "The shiat I have to put upp with just to pay the bills" expression on his face
 
2013-01-18 01:53:54 PM  

FightDirector: Actually, I'd like to revise my earlier statement and just repeat this one, in its entirety.

[i115.photobucket.com image 804x801]


Would've clicked "Like" at that comment.
 
2013-01-18 01:55:39 PM  

FlashHarry: [www.motifake.com image 640x574]


Sigh....loved that comic.

/Also: FARK DC~!
//The New 52 sucks monkey balls~!
 
2013-01-18 01:59:37 PM  

Magorn: mgshamster: Oerath: The skimpy clothes are a little annoying. The completely impractical armor they usually put them in is much more annoying to me. That said, he really not helping with those pics. When I see them I don't reconsider my vies on sexism, I wonder how drunk he was when he decided it was a good idea to dress-up like a chick and imitate book covers, without even shaving.

The armor is always what got to me the most.  Boob armor? Please. That would concentrate a blow to the chest, not deflect it.  The other thing that bothers me is impossible poses, like twisting a woman's spine so much just so they can show off her ass and her chest at the same time.  Hell, a contortionist tried to mimic the pose, and was unable to.

What real boob armor may look like:
[www.sol-invictus.org.uk image 511x413][img.auctiva.com image 251x299]
OTOH what an actual suit of armor worn by a real woman in battle looked like:
[cdn.japandailypress.com image 234x420]

You see that short skirt?...totally sexualizing


Those aren't that bad.  The one on the far left might cause some trouble when swinging a sword to the chest, and direct the sword inwards instead of away.  There are some that are particularly bad: link

As for the Japanese haidate, I doubt you'd see that worn with out additional armor on the legs.  Compare that to comic book or fantasy armor, and the "skirt" might be the only thing she wears, besides her armored bra.
 
2013-01-18 02:00:49 PM  
dreamworlds.ru
Not sexualized

images.comiccollectorlive.com
Sexualized
 
2013-01-18 02:07:47 PM  

Theaetetus: [dreamworlds.ru image 600x911]
Not sexualized

[images.comiccollectorlive.com image 369x567]
Sexualized


Alright, so... are we talking strictly about sexualized poses or also sexualized character design and sexualized clothing here? If it's just the poses, sure. If it's the outfit, the top one could go either way. If it's character design? C'mon, Hulk is a big lumbering green beast and She-Hulk is well-proportioned, muscled (but not to freakish levels), and has full lips.

It's the perfect example of your power/sex argument from earlier.
 
2013-01-18 02:12:40 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: [dreamworlds.ru image 600x911]
Not sexualized

[images.comiccollectorlive.com image 369x567]
Sexualized

Alright, so... are we talking strictly about sexualized poses or also sexualized character design and sexualized clothing here? If it's just the poses, sure. If it's the outfit, the top one could go either way. If it's character design? C'mon, Hulk is a big lumbering green beast and She-Hulk is well-proportioned, muscled (but not to freakish levels), and has full lips.

It's the perfect example of your power/sex argument from earlier.


Serious question: "why can't it be all 3 of those and more?"

Non serious question: "can someone merge this thread with the JLH thread?"
 
2013-01-18 02:16:01 PM  

mgshamster: While leaving the rest of her body where it is, move her lower back about 6 inches closer to the bed, and then you'd be more accurate to Liefeld 's drawing.


As a dyed in the wool capital L Liberal and long-time serial respecter of women, I'm having a real hard time giving a shiat about this kind of stuff. Dude does drawing some people fap to. Not my cup of tea really but I'm having a hard time seeing his stuff as damaging or harmful to, well, anyone really. Not offensive in the least - I'm way more offended by the writing in the accompanying material than the art.
 
2013-01-18 02:16:59 PM  

Magorn: Theaetetus: I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: I was always a fan of this one.
[rawrgg.com image 720x377]

Looking at that, I think we can agree that the original idealizes the male body as well...chest, muscles, etc...  So, point of order, it is doubly sexist.

But the way they're idealized is different... Women in fantasy art are frequently posed in submissive or sexualized positions, butt towards the viewer, off balance, etc.:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1267]

Men are posed in dominant positions, balanced, ready for combat, etc .:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x401]

The sexism isn't due to the fact that they're idealized, but due to the differences in power displayed, and the implication that men=power and women=sex.

You see a woman with a bloodied sword, glaring at someone off-screen while doing the "techno-viking point" to be "submissive"?   I hope you've worked out a good safeword for that kind of play.


One could argue that it's sexist because while the woman might be a total badass who just killed someone, her pose tells you she'd still let you fark her brains out from behind.

And I will fight anyone who says bad things about Jim C. Hines! I have a great deal of respect for that man.
 
2013-01-18 02:19:00 PM  

JohnBigBootay: mgshamster: While leaving the rest of her body where it is, move her lower back about 6 inches closer to the bed, and then you'd be more accurate to Liefeld 's drawing.

As a dyed in the wool capital L Liberal and long-time serial respecter of women, I'm having a real hard time giving a shiat about this kind of stuff. Dude does drawing some people fap to. Not my cup of tea really but I'm having a hard time seeing his stuff as damaging or harmful to, well, anyone really. Not offensive in the least - I'm way more offended by the writing in the accompanying material than the art.


Got an example?
 
2013-01-18 02:19:19 PM  

Theaetetus: [dreamworlds.ru image 600x911]
Not sexualized

[images.comiccollectorlive.com image 369x567]
Sexualized


If I wasn't 100% convinced that you were a female before -you just verified the assumption. Neither image is "sexualized", the top representing the invulnerability of She-Hulk and the bottom being a parody of the famous Vanity Fair cover.

If you are trying to moralize about sexualized images in comic books please explain how they are okay on covers of Romance Novels but not okay in comic books. That should be entertaining.

Also, since you Female-Supremacists are always pushing for Mackinnon like restrictions on the first amendment -consider the history of this organization:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-18 02:20:26 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: One could argue that it's sexist because while the woman might be a total badass who just killed someone, her pose tells you she'd still let you fark her brains out from behind.


I thought the cameraman just snuck up on her, and she was startled.
 
2013-01-18 02:20:59 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: kid_icarus: Well at least women would never idealize men that way...

[i76.photobucket.com image 300x485]

Exactly:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 498x393]


"Bestselling Author of Wisconsin Whore-Dog"?! Did I read that right?
 
2013-01-18 02:21:16 PM  

FlashHarry: [www.motifake.com image 640x574]


power girl:
wears shirt with cleavage window.
complains about people looking at cleavage.
 
2013-01-18 02:21:31 PM  

rocky_howard: brigid_fitch: The worst offender is Rob Liefeld

[assets.sbnation.com image 185x517]

Dear Rob:  Women have spines.

Hi there!

[ft.trillian.im image 453x700]


Yeah, almost identical:
img22.imageshack.us

(Q&D, and surprisingly, not exaggerated enough)
assets.sbnation.com
Now as much as I enjoy looking at that picture of the shapely woman in the pink dress. you can see that she doesn't really support your argument that Liefeld doesn't suck.
Please find another way to White-Knight him.
 
2013-01-18 02:22:40 PM  
Goddamnit so much
imageshack.us
 
2013-01-18 02:24:18 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: [dreamworlds.ru image 600x911]
Not sexualized

[images.comiccollectorlive.com image 369x567]
Sexualized

Alright, so... are we talking strictly about sexualized poses or also sexualized character design and sexualized clothing here? If it's just the poses, sure.


That's what I was talking about, yes.

If it's the outfit, the top one could go either way.

We could also talk about clothing. I don't think that one's nearly so blatant, beyond the half-tank. Would you ever see a comic cover with a guy wearing tight leather pants and a tank top? Sure. Full body spandex suit? Absolutely.
But this?
cdn.smosh.com

No. The barely-there sexualized outfits are unique to female characters.

If it's character design? C'mon, Hulk is a big lumbering green beast and She-Hulk is well-proportioned, muscled (but not to freakish levels), and has full lips.

It's the perfect example of your power/sex argument from earlier.


Sure, and you could even go farther and point out that Hulk has a name of his own, while She-Hulk is only named relative to him. Or consider Superman vs. Supergirl or Power Girl, Batman vs. Batgirl, Aquaman vs. Aquagirl, Bulletman vs. Bulletgirl, Hawkman vs. Hawkgirl, and of course, the most retarded of them all...
upload.wikimedia.org
Thor Girl.
 
2013-01-18 02:24:48 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: Goddamnit so much
[imageshack.us image 453x700]


Needs more pouches.
 
2013-01-18 02:24:56 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: Goddamnit so much
[imageshack.us image 453x700]


What happened? I can see both pics in the other post just fine.
 
2013-01-18 02:27:59 PM  

Theaetetus: No. The barely-there sexualized outfits are unique to female characters.


In b4 someone posts that one guy who's name I forget and lounges around in a speedo staring at the reader.
 
2013-01-18 02:28:21 PM  

mahuika: kid_icarus: Well at least women would never idealize men that way...

[i76.photobucket.com image 300x485]

He has some of those too.

Also, women are usually scantily clad on those covers as well. They are called bodice rippers because of that.


I believe 'bodice ripper' refers to a subset of romance novels in which sex is often depicted as quasi-rape.
 
2013-01-18 02:28:31 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: If I wasn't 100% convinced that you were a female before -you just verified the assumption.


Well, you know what they say about assumptions, ass.

If you are trying to moralize about sexualized images in comic books please explain how they are okay on covers of Romance Novels but not okay in comic books. That should be entertaining.

Which part, the one where you make another incorrect assumption?

Also, since you Female-Supremacists are always pushing for Mackinnon like restrictions on the first amendment -consider the history of this organization:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 172x209]


Hooray, a third incorrect assumption! That's three strikes, and you're back to troll land.
 
2013-01-18 02:31:30 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: No. The barely-there sexualized outfits are unique to female characters.

In b4 someone posts that one guy who's name I forget and lounges around in a speedo staring at the reader.


3.bp.blogspot.com
Prince Namor is not amused.
 
2013-01-18 02:35:09 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Heh, in their 1954 regulations, this was one of them:

Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
 
2013-01-18 02:39:55 PM  

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: No. The barely-there sexualized outfits are unique to female characters.

In b4 someone posts that one guy who's name I forget and lounges around in a speedo staring at the reader.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 471x726]
Prince Namor is not amused.


Namor is the comic personification of that 'Do I turn my ass or my cock to you while passing in a crowded aisle' scene from Fight Club.

/and again, as pointed out earlier, it's a dominant power display.
//as also pointed out, it's still sexist within the definition, just like claiming asians are good at math is racist. It may not be worth getting worked up over, but it still is.
 
2013-01-18 02:40:01 PM  

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: [dreamworlds.ru image 600x911]
Not sexualized

[images.comiccollectorlive.com image 369x567]
Sexualized

Alright, so... are we talking strictly about sexualized poses or also sexualized character design and sexualized clothing here? If it's just the poses, sure.

That's what I was talking about, yes.

If it's the outfit, the top one could go either way.

We could also talk about clothing. I don't think that one's nearly so blatant, beyond the half-tank. Would you ever see a comic cover with a guy wearing tight leather pants and a tank top? Sure. Full body spandex suit? Absolutely.
But this?
[cdn.smosh.com image 600x374]

No. The barely-there sexualized outfits are unique to female characters.

If it's character design? C'mon, Hulk is a big lumbering green beast and She-Hulk is well-proportioned, muscled (but not to freakish levels), and has full lips.

It's the perfect example of your power/sex argument from earlier.

Sure, and you could even go farther and point out that Hulk has a name of his own, while She-Hulk is only named relative to him. Or consider Superman vs. Supergirl or Power Girl, Batman vs. Batgirl, Aquaman vs. Aquagirl, Bulletman vs. Bulletgirl, Hawkman vs. Hawkgirl, and of course, the most retarded of them all...
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x352]
Thor Girl.


Great post! Where we're you the 14 other times we've hard this argument in the last month?

Also, Thor Girl? Are farking kidding me??? Could they not just crack open a Bulfinch's Mythology and grab the first female Norse name they encountered??? Hell, they could have just used Hera and the stories could have been about what an asskicker Thor's mom was in her youth.
 
2013-01-18 02:40:49 PM  
What the heck is wrong with a bit of sexual objectification? It sells books.

But it should be done equally, with heroic males presenting their butts and chests on covers in order to attract the female and gay eye - and our money.

Frank Frazetta was a master of this - even when his male figures were wearing the skimpiest of loincloths and their perfectly sculpted buttocks and bulging crotches were the obvious focal point of his paintings the men still managed to look like fierce warriors.

i42.photobucket.com

i42.photobucket.com

i42.photobucket.com

Even many of his female figures - while essentially nude - were often dynamic, strongly muscled and looked like they could easily beat anybody's ass.

i42.photobucket.com

Today's artists need to learn to strike a similar balance.
 
2013-01-18 02:41:39 PM  

mgshamster: Colour_out_of_Space: Goddamnit so much
[imageshack.us image 453x700]

What happened? I can see both pics in the other post just fine.


Hmm. The hotlinked one shows for me, but my poorly-done shop just shows an imageshack link. Weird.
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report