April 7th, 2006 -- by Bacchus
The Britney Spears Rear View
When I posted about the life sized statue of Britney Spears kneeling nude on a bearskin rug and giving birth (hey, aren’t those furs hard to clean?) there was some complaint about the lack of a rear view. With all due respect for pregnancy fetishists, I myself (on grounds of aesthetics) thought it was just as well that no rear view was available.
Well, it never pays to underestimate the power of the internet. Gawker has the unflattering angle you were all looking for. Thanks (I think) to Chris for emailing the link.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 7th, 2006 at 10:45 am.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Like nuclear weapons - something I wish would just be uninvented.
I will never, ever question your Editorial judgement, Bacchus!
Yes, I *did* need to see that. Though I have no idea why.
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say: EWWWWWWWW!
Bacchus,
I read that this disturbing little piece of kitsch is supposed to promote the pro-life cause. I think the message conveyed seems more like pro-birth control!
I’ve never felt a need to comment here before, but as a father who has assisted in the birthing of all his children, I do not find this ugly in the least.
In fact I cannot understand the “ewwwww” comments.
This is a beautiful thing.
Extreme - Sure. It’s difficult to come into this world.
For further viewing, one should see the NYC Maternity Center Association’s set of childbirth statues.
No, I do not have some sort of fetish and hope I never witness another childbirth (I’m too old to be rearing more little ones), but the births I did witness have given me some of the very happiest memories of my life.
So Bacchus and most of the commenters here are disgusted by the act of giving birth? Strange.
Also, the rear-view of this statue has nothing to do with pregnancy fetish. I’d say that pregnancy fetish and birthing fetish are two completely separate things. The former involves attraction to “glowing” women with round bellies and enlarged breasts. The latter involves attraction to seeing babies come out of vaginal canals. So completely different that any overlap would probably be coincidental.
Don’t put words in my mouth, please; I cited “grounds of aesthetics” for thinking it was just as well no rear view was available. It’s a far cry from there to “disgust” — there are a metric buttload of pictures I don’t post here because they don’t rise to my personal defination of erotic. It’s very rare for me to be disgusted by such pictures.
And even if I were disgusted by that picture of bad statuary (I’m not) it’s a huge unsupportable leap from there to saying I’m disgusted by childbirth (which would be just damn silly.)
it is not ugly, it is just the nature
I showed this to my wife, who has both seen the other pictures and given birth. Her reaction? It’s totally unworkable. When giving birth, gravity is your friend. In that silly-ass position, the baby would have to climb up, out of the womb. Lying on one’s back, or squating, the baby’s own weight help him or her be born.
The artist is a pinhead.