Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Huffington Post)   So, it turns out that the definition of the "perfect female body" has evolved over time. Personally, I miss the 1950s torpedo boobs   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 143
    More: Obvious, female body, weight loss, potable water  
•       •       •

8239 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2014 at 8:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-17 02:01:29 AM  
It's always surprising to me when I watch an old black & white films how attractive those actresses where.

/I've definitely got a type
 
2014-03-17 03:36:04 AM  
6. The "Bigger Is Better" (In The Right Places) Look (1980s): Have large breasts but a very small waist.

fark yes. More like Cindy Crawford, please.

8. The Fake And Skinny Look (Late 90s -- Early 00s): The plastic and polished body.

No one thought that was attractive.

9. The Unrealistic "Healthy" Skinny Look (Late '00s -- today): Be curvy yet thin at the same time.

Unrealistic? Oh?
 by Renee Jacques
Oh... Jealousy.
 
2014-03-17 05:52:56 AM  
This is news?
 
2014-03-17 07:38:26 AM  
TFA left out the '95-14 "tattooed just in case guys forgot where to ogle" look.

Because while Ava Gardner might have been staggeringly hot, what she really needed to take her sex appeal to the next level was a cleavage tat.
 
2014-03-17 07:59:38 AM  
I'm good with that...

lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com

But gorgeous is timeless...
 
2014-03-17 08:00:13 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: 8. The Fake And Skinny Look (Late 90s -- Early 00s): The plastic and polished body.

No one thought that was attractive.


Except, of course, for gay men.
 
2014-03-17 08:08:59 AM  
...and some styles are sessy no matter what time you live in...

lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-03-17 08:20:12 AM  
The "perfect female body" is a myth. Wimmins just come in too many varieties--and always have. Thank, God...

lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-03-17 08:34:43 AM  
In 50 years, these women are still going to be considered gorgeous.

lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-03-17 08:35:34 AM  
Author put way too much time into this.  Men have always wanted just one perfect female body type: breathing and willing to talk to them.
 
2014-03-17 08:40:51 AM  
Be careful, you'll poke your eyes out.
 
2014-03-17 08:42:17 AM  
This has always bothered me - maybe some smart farker can set me straight.  But I really don't believe this.

I've seen this claim before - that beauty is subjective and changes.  Then they show a picture of a painting done in the 1400s with a fat naked chick.  And they concluded, 'See *that* is what they liked back then!'

But I don't buy it.

There has always been a duality between art and porn - and there are tons of examples of art going out of it's way to NOT be porn.  Probably the most famous sculpture in the world - Michelangelo's David has a *tiny* penis.  Not a normal penis, not a large penis.  A TINY penis.

He wasn't given a tiny penis because chicks, back in the day, used to LOVE TINY PENIS.  They gave him a tiny penis for the exact opposite reason - a big penis was associated with sex.  To make the sculpture less porn and more art, a tiny penis was given.

When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts?  My guess is, no.  They picked a fat chick for the exact opposite reason.  It wasn't meant to be sexual.

Same deal with modern-ish day fashion.  People point to stick-thin girls with weird faces walking down a catwalk in some weird ultra-hip fashion (designed by a gay man most of the time)....but I don't feel like that was EVER intended to be the definition of what people find attractive.  Something like Playboy - the goal there has always been to show women that men find sexually attractive.  Sure, there are some trends, but by and large, there is very little variation in what magazines like Playboy show - and most of trends would have to do with hairstyle, fashion, and technological/medical advances (plastic surgery).  The girls look almost exactly the same.

Same thing when people talk about how 'back in the day' you could be 'fat and sexy' - like Marilyn  Monroe.  But if you take the five minutes required to look up her actual measurements, when she was modelling she had the build of Anne Hathaway.

I think people just like the idea that our standards change.  Most people aren't super hot, and they feel good thinking they would be, if it were just 50 years earlier.  The 'goal' woman that men find desirable (I don't believe) has changed much at all.
 
2014-03-17 08:42:40 AM  
 
2014-03-17 08:42:49 AM  
this thread is useful with pictures
 
2014-03-17 08:44:14 AM  
You know what never goes out of style?  Boobs.  People  always like boobs.
 
2014-03-17 08:44:26 AM  
"Perfect" is sort of a shifting opinion, but I think we can settle on a few nice averages between all the schools of thought...

lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-03-17 08:45:01 AM  
 
2014-03-17 08:45:28 AM  
img.fark.net

She needs to get her booger-hook off the bang switch.
 
2014-03-17 08:47:05 AM  

dittybopper: [img.fark.net image 427x640]

She needs to get her booger-hook off the bang switch.


Nah, keeps the photographer from getting any ideas...
 
2014-03-17 08:48:41 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: You know what never goes out of style?  Boobs.  People  always like boobs.


Mostly
NSFW
 
2014-03-17 08:54:50 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: He wasn't given a tiny penis because chicks, back in the day, used to LOVE TINY PENIS.  They gave him a tiny penis for the exact opposite reason - a big penis was associated with sex.  To make the sculpture less porn and more art, a tiny penis was given.


Or maybe the David started with a bigger member but Michelangelo had trouble with the marble that day, and finally just said "fark it" and did the minimum needed to get by.
 
2014-03-17 08:59:24 AM  

hubiestubert: dittybopper: [img.fark.net image 427x640]

She needs to get her booger-hook off the bang switch.

Nah, keeps the photographer from getting any ideas...


Hammer is down.  Odds are she just put a hole in his ceiling.
 
2014-03-17 09:00:22 AM  
Women would look a lot better of magazine photographers just STOPPED FARKING AROUND.  Honestly, just kill those people already.

What doesn't change over the decades is just how hideous magazines manage to make women look, and women try to emulate that, making the problem worse.  The result is this kind of bubble where no one has the foggiest idea what straight men like to see when there isn't a more vocal group around.

Ladies, perfection is impossible and we do appreciate the effort, but honestly, good isn't that hard and trying to better is often counterproductive.  Eat right (don't binge on ice cream or starve yourselves), stay in shape, be willing to show some skin & moves now and then.  No one except self-loathing hags and misogynistic gay men in the fashion industry are telling you to show ribs.  If you have the fitness and stamina to run a few miles without toppling over dead, some guy out there wants to do you.  You won't be able to do that if you haven't eaten in three days or ate 40 Twinkies for lunch.

Fark_Guy_Rob: When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts? My guess is, no. They picked a fat chick for the exact opposite reason. It wasn't meant to be sexual.


I wouldn't say opposite reason.  If you wanted to be an artist back then, it meant catering to some rich douche's whims.  More likely some prominent benefactor's wife wanted to be immortalized in a painting and immortalizing her muffin top was the painter's way of saying "fark you".
 
2014-03-17 09:05:03 AM  

dittybopper: Hammer is down. Odds are she just put a hole in his ceiling.


Right, because they'd totally use a real gun, complete with gun safety training and live ammo, in a photo shoot.

FFS, this level of geekiness just pisses me off.  If it's not an out-and-out prop, odds are at the very least they removed the firing pin and filled the chamber and the model had never held a gun before or since, but don't let that stop you from being a douche about it.
 
2014-03-17 09:12:36 AM  
Fark_Guy_Rob:
When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts?  My guess is, no.  They picked a fat chick for the exact opposite reason.  It wasn't meant to be sexual.

It was meant to flatter the purchaser who commissioned the painting, who would be invariably rich, and often fat, as you had to be rich to be fat in cultures where the 1% were the only people with surplus food.

This is also why more care was taken in drawing the clothes than the faces. The clothes were signifiers of the wealth of the commissioner, and would be understood as such.

Relatively radical painters like Carvaggio would be criticized not only for their hedonistic lifestyles, but for their depiction of "real" commoners and tradesfolk as models for Biblical characters (the prevalent subject matter of most paintings that weren't portraits as churches would pay for scenes from the Bible. The rich didn't want to see painted calluses, dirty skin or labour-worn faces. They wanted to see their own wealth reflected.

He/she who pays the painter calls the art. Sex (unless it was a rich dude commissioning porn in the form of acceptably Classical myths that would feature his mistress as Leda getting humped by a swan or something) was not part of the equation, at least not directly.
 
2014-03-17 09:14:38 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: HMS_Blinkin: You know what never goes out of style?  Boobs.  People  always like boobs.

Mostly
NSFW


Is that Lena Dunham's yearbook photo?
 
2014-03-17 09:17:57 AM  

Gulper Eel: Fark_Guy_Rob: He wasn't given a tiny penis because chicks, back in the day, used to LOVE TINY PENIS.  They gave him a tiny penis for the exact opposite reason - a big penis was associated with sex.  To make the sculpture less porn and more art, a tiny penis was given.

Or maybe the David started with a bigger member but Michelangelo had trouble with the marble that day, and finally just said "fark it" and did the minimum needed to get by.


It's possible, but unlikely.

There are lots of examples/references you can find in similar depictions of the male form.  Large junk was associated with lust.  They intentionally depicted features that *weren't* considered sexually ideal.
 
2014-03-17 09:22:34 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts?  My guess is, no.


Well, no. Rubens painted his wife as Venus and lovingly noted every crease and dimple.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-17 09:25:13 AM  

dragonchild: dittybopper: Hammer is down. Odds are she just put a hole in his ceiling.

Right, because they'd totally use a real gun, complete with gun safety training and live ammo, in a photo shoot.

FFS, this level of geekiness just pisses me off.  If it's not an out-and-out prop, odds are at the very least they removed the firing pin and filled the chamber and the model had never held a gun before or since, but don't let that stop you from being a douche about it.


Wait, I'm confused:  Am I supposed to take someone's word that a realistic looking gun is disabled?  Or should I treat every gun as a loaded gun?

Because option B seems to me to be the much safer course of action.

But then, I'm a "responsible gun owner".
 
2014-03-17 09:26:11 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: He wasn't given a tiny penis because chicks, back in the day, used to LOVE TINY PENIS. They gave him a tiny penis for the exact opposite reason - a big penis was associated with sex. To make the sculpture less porn and more art, a tiny penis was given.



David had a tiny penis because he was terrified, and when you get that scared, your junk tries to retreat.

Remember what the statue was depicting? It was a guy armed with only a sling going out to fight one-on-one against the biggest ass-kicker in the Phillistine army. If Michelangelo had made it any more life-like, David would have piss trickling down his leg.
 
2014-03-17 09:28:34 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Gulper Eel: Fark_Guy_Rob: He wasn't given a tiny penis because chicks, back in the day, used to LOVE TINY PENIS.  They gave him a tiny penis for the exact opposite reason - a big penis was associated with sex.  To make the sculpture less porn and more art, a tiny penis was given.

Or maybe the David started with a bigger member but Michelangelo had trouble with the marble that day, and finally just said "fark it" and did the minimum needed to get by.

It's possible, but unlikely.

There are lots of examples/references you can find in similar depictions of the male form.  Large junk was associated with lust.  They intentionally depicted features that *weren't* considered sexually ideal.


Except when you look at some of the works of Lucas Cranach the Elder, or Sandro Botticelli, who did many religious paintings for The Church, you'll see that almost all of the women depicted by those artists are thin.  By your logic, that would suggest that The Church of the time felt that overweight women were sexy and thus to be avoided in art.
 
2014-03-17 09:28:51 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: This has always bothered me - maybe some smart farker can set me straight.  But I really don't believe this.

I've seen this claim before - that beauty is subjective and changes.  Then they show a picture of a painting done in the 1400s with a fat naked chick.  And they concluded, 'See *that* is what they liked back then!'

But I don't buy it.

There has always been a duality between art and porn - and there are tons of examples of art going out of it's way to NOT be porn.  Probably the most famous sculpture in the world - Michelangelo's David has a *tiny* penis.  Not a normal penis, not a large penis.  A TINY penis.

He wasn't given a tiny penis because chicks, back in the day, used to LOVE TINY PENIS.  They gave him a tiny penis for the exact opposite reason - a big penis was associated with sex.  To make the sculpture less porn and more art, a tiny penis was given.

When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts?  My guess is, no.  They picked a fat chick for the exact opposite reason.  It wasn't meant to be sexual.

Same deal with modern-ish day fashion.  People point to stick-thin girls with weird faces walking down a catwalk in some weird ultra-hip fashion (designed by a gay man most of the time)....but I don't feel like that was EVER intended to be the definition of what people find attractive.  Something like Playboy - the goal there has always been to show women that men find sexually attractive.  Sure, there are some trends, but by and large, there is very little variation in what magazines like Playboy show - and most of trends would have to do with hairstyle, fashion, and technological/medical advances (plastic surgery).  The girls look almost exactly the same.

Same thing when people talk about how 'back in the day' you could be 'fat and sexy' - like Marilyn  Monroe.  But if you take the five minutes required to look up her actual measurements, when she was modelling she ...


All of this.

Goya's La Maja Desnuda resulted in him being brought before the Inquisition in the late 18th century because it was basically porn. It wasn't some fatty, it was a hawt chick. It was intended to be sexual.

And fashion modelling is not about hawtness. Fashion modelling is about showing off clothes. It's not about gay men hating women, it's about the fact that showing off clothes is best done with walking coat hangers.

If you look at what men chose as pinups from the 1940s to today, it's pretty much consistent. It's Betty Grable, Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch, Farrah Fawcett, Pamela Anderson and Kate Upton. Fairly thin with a decent (but not too big) rack and good hips.  And that's about the evolutionary signals that men look for in terms of breeding - not too old, not too young, capable of child bearing and rearing.
 
2014-03-17 09:30:23 AM  

yakmans_dad: Fark_Guy_Rob: When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts?  My guess is, no.

Well, no. Rubens painted his wife as Venus and lovingly noted every crease and dimple.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x350]


He painted his *wife*.  She was fat and dimply.

I have no trouble believing that some guy married a fat chick.  I can find all sorts of modern examples of dudes taking nude photos of their unattractive wifes and proudly uploading them to the internet.  That's not the same as saying it represents what the society views as physically attractive.

Now, if his wife was fat, dimply, and renown for being sexually attractive....and teenage boys would fight for a chance to catch a glimpse of that painting so they could go home and whack it - then, sure, I'm wrong.  But I'm not convinced that was the case.
 
2014-03-17 09:30:52 AM  
I have it on very good authority that all women are nice, it's just that some are nicer than others.
 
2014-03-17 09:32:10 AM  
What straight men like has remained pretty constant over the millennia. What fashion designers like (many of whom are gay men) varies pretty wildly over time.
 
2014-03-17 09:32:22 AM  

dragonchild: Fark_Guy_Rob: When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts? My guess is, no. They picked a fat chick for the exact opposite reason. It wasn't meant to be sexual.


I wouldn't say opposite reason.  If you wanted to be an artist back then, it meant catering to some rich douche's whims.  More likely some prominent benefactor's wife wanted to be immortalized in a painting and immortalizing her muffin top was the painter's way of saying "fark you".



Of course before the industrialization of food production, fat meant rich, because no one that wasn't wealth could afford either the lack of exercise or the amount of calories needed, so during certain eras you could see it being fashionable.
 
2014-03-17 09:32:50 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: yakmans_dad: Fark_Guy_Rob: When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts?  My guess is, no.

Well, no. Rubens painted his wife as Venus and lovingly noted every crease and dimple.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x350]

He painted his *wife*.  She was fat and dimply.

I have no trouble believing that some guy married a fat chick.  I can find all sorts of modern examples of dudes taking nude photos of their unattractive wifes and proudly uploading them to the internet.  That's not the same as saying it represents what the society views as physically attractive.

Now, if his wife was fat, dimply, and renown for being sexually attractive....and teenage boys would fight for a chance to catch a glimpse of that painting so they could go home and whack it - then, sure, I'm wrong.  But I'm not convinced that was the case.


Venus is the goddess of carnal love. Eros.

But I'm not convinced that you can be swayed by evidence.
 
2014-03-17 09:33:41 AM  
Not sure if safe for work. (definitely not safe for prudes)
 
2014-03-17 09:33:52 AM  
All some of those old painting prove is that there have always been chubby chasers.
 
2014-03-17 09:34:45 AM  
31.media.tumblr.com

Am I wrong for thinking of this?
 
2014-03-17 09:35:28 AM  
Perfect according to who? Women's magazines at the grocery checkout? Stop buying them! Problem solved!
 
2014-03-17 09:35:31 AM  

yakmans_dad: Fark_Guy_Rob: When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts?  My guess is, no.

Well, no. Rubens painted his wife as Venus and lovingly noted every crease and dimple.


That was to keep the rest of the furniture from ogling the painting all day
 
2014-03-17 09:36:59 AM  

Teufelaffe: Fark_Guy_Rob: Gulper Eel: Fark_Guy_Rob: He wasn't given a tiny penis because chicks, back in the day, used to LOVE TINY PENIS.  They gave him a tiny penis for the exact opposite reason - a big penis was associated with sex.  To make the sculpture less porn and more art, a tiny penis was given.

Or maybe the David started with a bigger member but Michelangelo had trouble with the marble that day, and finally just said "fark it" and did the minimum needed to get by.

It's possible, but unlikely.

There are lots of examples/references you can find in similar depictions of the male form.  Large junk was associated with lust.  They intentionally depicted features that *weren't* considered sexually ideal.

Except when you look at some of the works of Lucas Cranach the Elder, or Sandro Botticelli, who did many religious paintings for The Church, you'll see that almost all of the women depicted by those artists are thin.  By your logic, that would suggest that The Church of the time felt that overweight women were sexy and thus to be avoided in art.


No - you're either misunderstanding me or intentionally taking me out of context.

I'm saying that not all depictions of the human form represent what that society views as sexually attractive.  So when people point to a fat chick in a painting, it's not evidence that fat chicks were considered sexually attractive.  A skinny girl in a painting is also not evidence that skinny girls were considered sexually attractive.

The sculpture example is different because I can point you to references that show that a large penis WAS considered sexual.  I'm giving one specific example where something was portrayed OPPOSITE to what was considered sexual/sexually desirable.

I'm not implying that anything NOT in a painting is what people found attractive.
That is nonsense.

What I'm saying is, if you want me to believe that fat chicks were considered *sexually attractive*, you need to show more than a painting of a fat naked chick.  Not all paintings of naked people are meant to be sexually attractive.
 
2014-03-17 09:37:35 AM  
I'm fine being a renaissance man.

/altho torpedo boobs have become yet another fetish for me...
/Whatever happened to settling for "nude"?
 
2014-03-17 09:39:23 AM  
I thought the current era was yoga pants. There could be worse things that describe the time we're in.

I say variety is the spice of life.
 
2014-03-17 09:40:21 AM  
Book. Marked.
 
2014-03-17 09:40:27 AM  

farkeruk: ...showing off clothes is best done with walking coat hangers.


Possibly the dumbest thing said on Fark today.  I realize it's still early, but it's going to take some work to top that.

No, the best way to show off clothes is not to put them on "walking coat hangers."  If that were the case, stores that sell clothes wouldn't bother with mannequins, they'd just toss everything on hangers and call it a day.  We wouldn't even have fashion models, we'd just have coat racks. The best way to show off clothing is by putting it on a person.  That's the entire farking point of fashion shows; to see the pieces actually on a human body.
 
2014-03-17 09:40:33 AM  
Just no fat chicks.
 
2014-03-17 09:40:57 AM  

yakmans_dad: Fark_Guy_Rob: yakmans_dad: Fark_Guy_Rob: When I see an old painting of some boring looking fat chick, I really question if it was ever intended to inspire lustful thoughts?  My guess is, no.

Well, no. Rubens painted his wife as Venus and lovingly noted every crease and dimple.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x350]

He painted his *wife*.  She was fat and dimply.

I have no trouble believing that some guy married a fat chick.  I can find all sorts of modern examples of dudes taking nude photos of their unattractive wifes and proudly uploading them to the internet.  That's not the same as saying it represents what the society views as physically attractive.

Now, if his wife was fat, dimply, and renown for being sexually attractive....and teenage boys would fight for a chance to catch a glimpse of that painting so they could go home and whack it - then, sure, I'm wrong.  But I'm not convinced that was the case.

Venus is the goddess of carnal love. Eros.

But I'm not convinced that you can be swayed by evidence.


That's not evidence.  That's a guy who painted his wife.

I love my wife.  She's great.  She's my Venus and all that jazz.  But she wouldn't make it into Playboy if she tried.  And I won't be appearing in a Playgirl any time soon.

I would absolutely be swayed by evidence.  I mean that genuinely, but I'm not sure a husband is an objective source on how attractive his wife is.  If I took nude photos of my wife and then spent 8 hours photoshopping up her imperfections she'd be PISSED.  That doesn't mean it wouldn't better reflect the opinions of what our society deems attractive.
 
2014-03-17 09:43:20 AM  

dittybopper: dragonchild: dittybopper: Hammer is down. Odds are she just put a hole in his ceiling.

Right, because they'd totally use a real gun, complete with gun safety training and live ammo, in a photo shoot.

FFS, this level of geekiness just pisses me off.  If it's not an out-and-out prop, odds are at the very least they removed the firing pin and filled the chamber and the model had never held a gun before or since, but don't let that stop you from being a douche about it.

Wait, I'm confused:  Am I supposed to take someone's word that a realistic looking gun is disabled?  Or should I treat every gun as a loaded gun?

Because option B seems to me to be the much safer course of action.

But then, I'm a "responsible gun owner".


You may be in the majority, but then I've seen who is licensed to drive, and it ain't pretty.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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