Patrick L kindly sent me these…..

Impressed?

 

38 comments

  1. At first I couldn’t see the illusion. Then I noticed these are photos of domino-toppling arrays taken from above.

  2. 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.

    1. ok got it now…maybe you need to be a man to figure this out quickly…
      fewer like these please 😉

  3. 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…

  4. 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!

  5. 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?

  6. @Yana – I too wonder whether sexual orientation affects this.

    I liked the first one better than the second one. Second was too obvious.

  7. 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)

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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!

    🙂

  11. The second one is quite obvious. I have trouble getting the first one to be honest. Maybe I am trying to hard now and can’t see the obvious.

  12. I’m just looking for place to start up a blog with a friend where we talk sports in Chicago as well as other things going on nationwide….just for fun. Any suggestions on sites would be great. Thanks..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s