Almost two real-life examples of the “It’s a vase… no, it’s two faces! No, wait… it’s a vase!” thing. Almost. Except maybe replace “faces” with “legs”, and “vase” with ….well… something else.
But “rude”?
O Internet, you have truly robbed me of all my innocence.
Although I fairly quickly saw the “illusion” of the first photo, the side of her car seat is too obviously not a leg. So while I could “see” it, I couldn’t see it. If that makes sense (it’s late).
The second one, I scrolled up and down it at least three times before I got an inkling of what the sophomoric mind who sent it on to you saw.
Maybe if I hack a leg off one of my X chromosomes, these will be more impressive/funny…
The second illusion is very like the first, so if you’ve seen the first, the second is nothing special. Also, there isn’t much illusion with the second one. It’s pretty obvious that the legs aren’t the girl’s own legs!
Even after reading all the comments I have no idea what the illusion is supposed to be or why it’s ostensibly rude. Anyone care to explain it to a poor befuddled asexual neutrois?
I doubt sexual orientation is as big a factor on spotting this ilusion. Rather, I suspect it’s that many men here, when they are looking at the picture of a woman on the internet, like as not it’s porn. Ergo men are predisposed to seeing photos of women viewed on the internet as probably pornographic.,
Obviously not all pictures of any woman. Just usually young, attractive ones with a lot of skin-tone in the picture.
so, it’s not that men are predisposed to seeing it but that it’s viewed via the medium of the Internet, where this sort of picture is commonplace.
(I’m female)
Legion-I think I was fairly clear about the “illusion”. It looks like you can see a woman’s pants (or underwear for those in US). Despite this sight being fairly common in swimming pools, beaches etc, some men seem to find it thrilling if it’s seen in a car or on the front page of a newspaper.
More like this pls.
The second one was a little easy for me, but that first one… pretty cool.
At first I couldn’t see the illusion. Then I noticed these are photos of domino-toppling arrays taken from above.
Ohhh… I see now =p
not ‘impressed’….. smirking!
smiling and smirking
Almost two real-life examples of the “It’s a vase… no, it’s two faces! No, wait… it’s a vase!” thing. Almost. Except maybe replace “faces” with “legs”, and “vase” with ….well… something else.
But “rude”?
O Internet, you have truly robbed me of all my innocence.
Not impressed. Fewer like these please
I don’t get it. Sorry for being dense but what’s the illusion?
ok got it now…maybe you need to be a man to figure this out quickly…
fewer like these please
Oooh I can see a lady’s pants!! Hmmmm less of these please
Not at all
Not impressed.
Although I fairly quickly saw the “illusion” of the first photo, the side of her car seat is too obviously not a leg. So while I could “see” it, I couldn’t see it. If that makes sense (it’s late).
The second one, I scrolled up and down it at least three times before I got an inkling of what the sophomoric mind who sent it on to you saw.
Maybe if I hack a leg off one of my X chromosomes, these will be more impressive/funny…
What a strange man you are.
The first one – at first I could not see the reality. Now I’m disappointed that I can
Very good them.
I got the “illusion,” but didn’t understand what made it “rude” until someone explained. Evidently I am Out of the Cultual Loop.
Anybody noticed the strange shape of the rear window in the first picture?
Anyone else noticed the “strange” shape of the rear window in the first picture?
Oh dear. How old are you??
Less like these, please.
Is there any experimental data looking into whether sexual orientation affects the power of this illusions?
Not terribly impressed. The 1st one feels photoshopped.
The second illusion is very like the first, so if you’ve seen the first, the second is nothing special. Also, there isn’t much illusion with the second one. It’s pretty obvious that the legs aren’t the girl’s own legs!
Even after reading all the comments I have no idea what the illusion is supposed to be or why it’s ostensibly rude. Anyone care to explain it to a poor befuddled asexual neutrois?
Disgustingly RUDE and CRUDE… More please!
@Yana – I too wonder whether sexual orientation affects this.
I liked the first one better than the second one. Second was too obvious.
Meh!!!
You are a professor of what exactly?
Bit crap illusions but rude? You lot must be very old.
At first i didn’t see it.
Its not hard to see the truth, it is hard to see the Illusion.
Sorry.
Love it, more of these please
I doubt sexual orientation is as big a factor on spotting this ilusion. Rather, I suspect it’s that many men here, when they are looking at the picture of a woman on the internet, like as not it’s porn. Ergo men are predisposed to seeing photos of women viewed on the internet as probably pornographic.,
Obviously not all pictures of any woman. Just usually young, attractive ones with a lot of skin-tone in the picture.
so, it’s not that men are predisposed to seeing it but that it’s viewed via the medium of the Internet, where this sort of picture is commonplace.
(I’m female)
ok. not seeing it. at all.
thanks to all the people who read the pleas of those of us asking what it is yet won’t answer specifically.
Legion-I think I was fairly clear about the “illusion”. It looks like you can see a woman’s pants (or underwear for those in US). Despite this sight being fairly common in swimming pools, beaches etc, some men seem to find it thrilling if it’s seen in a car or on the front page of a newspaper.
oh, well then that’s probably why I didn’t notice it.
I’m a big boy now! No giggles for panties! Ha!
Thanks for the explanantion!
I still think “More like this pls.” is funnier than the illusions…
bench jacken men guenstig
Nice information, wonderful web page style, keep up the good work