June 15, 2005

Jessica Kramer


In my present sleep-deprived state, I've become weirdly obsessed with this photo (NSFW) of Playboy Cyber Girl Jessica Kramer. I don't find it erotic, but I do find it very compelling: the bizarrely over-made-up, expressionless, highly symmetrical face, the perfectly blown-out hair, the super wide-set eyes which remind me a bit of Denise Richards, the curiously flat nose – and then a torso which seems wholly unconnected to the head atop it, perfectly well-formed and slim, with large breasts falling at two curious angles, pointing out and away from the body, the rear one more convex on the top, the front one flatter, and then that slightly reddish left knee, a lone holdout of something realistic amidst all the airbrushing, although attached to an unrealistically beautiful thigh, and then the awkward pose of the legs below the knees, twisted in a very unnatural position – you try standing in that pose with your left foot pointing straight out like that – it's not easy! I'm told that "that's what people who read Playboy" want, which may or may not be true, but the rest of the photo session (NSFW, obvs) really doesn't do anything for me at all: not only isn't it sexy, but when I see the photos I feel quite disgusted, actually, and want to close them or click away from them rather than just keep on staring like I do at that one full-length image. But as I say, it's very hot in New York and I barely got any sleep last night, so that could explain everything.

Posted by Felix at 02:32 PM GMT

I can't wait for you to wake up later today or tomorrow, come back and reread this, and try to explain yourself.

But htis post makes me long for being able to work from home again...

Posted by: mike on June 15, 2005 03:16 PM

We host shots of nudie booties at MemeFirst now???

Hmm, I just tried it - no problem. Though I admit I am dressed and not standing on my bed trying it in heels. I am also not quite as top heavy - that poor girl's back!

Her legs look disconnected from the rest of her body because they lack pigment unlike the rest of her body. I'm glad Playboy featured her though. Usually the girls are rail thin with gigantic boobs which is more unrealistic than this girl. At least she has some meat to her, like the rest of us girls who actually don't purge our food.

Posted by: michelle on June 15, 2005 03:30 PM

Hurray to Felix for lightening things up!

Posted by: tim on June 15, 2005 06:35 PM

Just for that Tim, I'm posting my six-part analysis of Heidigger and the application of his philosophy to states' rights in the antibellum South, and how it means that all left-handers are traitors.

Posted by: mike on June 15, 2005 06:51 PM

Mike, I would prefer that and a root canal to all the talk about the bible and the Koran and the "war" on terror and enemy combatants and what people are wiping their butts with at Gitmo.

Posted by: michelle on June 15, 2005 06:54 PM

Felix - Is this your bid for for the Fleshbot editorial job?

My sympathies. I suggest renting a hotel room for a couple of nights although it looks like it will cool down tonight.

Posted by: Gherimiah on June 15, 2005 08:11 PM

The weird thing is that even though it is cool outside, it's still really hot inside. I just repaired to my local coffee shop to try to get some boring transcribing done here, but the a/c is so loud I can't hear the interview on my iPod. And it's still really warm in the coffee shop.

Posted by: Felix on June 15, 2005 11:12 PM

Perhaps laying off the boobies links might keep you cool? Also, I heard putting your feet in a bucket of cold'ish tap water brings your entire body temp down. I don't know, it's dry, sunny and in the 70's here in Colorado. So what do I know?

Posted by: michelle on June 15, 2005 11:20 PM

It would seem there's the possibility of a synthesis of the lack of air conditioning, being a wanker, and Christian virtue, but I'm too tired to work it out. And when I say work it out...

Posted by: 99 on June 16, 2005 05:08 AM

I think you're missing the point, Felix. This is porn for the new America. Boring and bland and sanitized for good god-fearing citizens. This is the perfect sex object for those little dork GOP troopers interning down at the Heritage Foundation this summer.

Posted by: Marc on June 16, 2005 03:35 PM

So Marc, you're positing that the prevalance of over-mediated sexual imagery and cultural opposition to pornograhy are both the fault of the right? The right is to blame for the completely waxed mound and the clothing that conceals it? The nakedness and the clothedness?

You're a bit obsessed. Sometimes bad porn is just bad porn, and there's no larger cultural force at work. Playboy is a bunch of uninspired corporate hacks, and that's it.

Posted by: Sterling on June 17, 2005 05:33 AM

BZZZZZ! Sterling, wrong, again. 'Bad porn' like any fetish, it highly ritualized. Porn narratives typically establish woman as infantile supplicants ("Oh my! The pizza man's cock just fell out! What do I do?") in a world of manly men who take what they want, when they want. This is a social construct that predates just about any notion of equality. It's right in line with Cosmo telling the housewife to greet her husband in a nightie. Nothing wrong with any of these scenarios if they weren't so inextricably tied to prejudicial and disempowering attitudes about women.

Here's the fun part, where you get to try and argue that the predominant cultural forces of the GOP believe in fully equality for women. Please do; I'm sure we could all use a good chuckle to start the weekend.

Posted by: 99 on June 17, 2005 01:00 PM

Um...what would make you think that people in the GOP don't believe in full equality for women? I mean, you throw something out like that, it's such a betrayal of the fact that you don't really know any Republicans that I feel embarrassed for you. You might just as well have said, "And I suppose, Sterling, that next you're going to tell us that Jews don't really have horns, or that black people aren't born with tails." It's just ignorant.

Maybe you didn't learn this before you dropped out of school in the 8th grade, but women's suffrage (that last one is a fancy word that means the right to vote) was a Republican Party initiative from the late 19th century all the way through to the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Women's suffrage would have happened years earlier had the Democrat Party not blocked the amendment from passage in the Senate. It was only when the GOP reclaimed control of the Senate following the 1918 mid-term elections that the amendment was passed by the Senate with almost-unanimous support from Republican senators and spotty opposition from the Democrats, who knew by that time they were beat. So in May 1919 the amendment passed the Senate and was sent out the state legislatures. By the following summer, the required number of state legislatures - at the time 36 - had accepted the amendment. 26 of them were GOP-controlled. The 19th Amendment was thus ratified in August of 1920 by the action of the 36th legislature (Tennessee) and reluctantly certified by Democrat Woodrow Wilson's administration a week later. If you want the real history of the Democrat Party on women's equality, here it is:

In 1917, after President Woodrow Wilson refused audiences with suffrage lobbyists, women peacefully protested for passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in front of the White House. In a five-month period, 168 were imprisoned. Forced to disrobe in front of a company of men, some were tossed head first into prison cells, and rendered unconscious. Guards terrorized them. They were fed oatmeal and soups filled with worms, insect-ridden starches, vile salt peter, and rotting horse meat. Conditions in the jail leaked out to the press. Placed in solitary confinement, their mail was cut off, and they were forced to perform hard labor. One prisoner was handcuffed to a spot above her cell door all night...some imprisoned for months. žIn all my years of criminal practice, I have never seen prisoners so badly treated,Ó said an Illinois senator. Alice Paul launched a hunger strike and was immediately placed in the psychiatric ward. She was force-fed three times a day through a tube in her throat and wakened hourly throughout the night with a flashlight. Thirty women followed her lead and hunger struck. [*]

(That same GOP Senate elected in 1918 also rejected Wilson's Versailles Treay and thus the League of Nations, for pretty much exactly the same reasons you'd expect modern Republicans to oppose it - Versailles/LoN would have surrendered U.S. military sovereignty to a "multi-lateral" NGO, basically, and the Republicans wouldn't permit that.)

The first woman to be elected to Congress was Jeanette Rankin in 1917, two years before the 19th Amendment passed. Guess which party she belonged to? Hint: she wasn't a Democrat. Of the first 10 female senators, 8 came from states that are today solidly Republican, though they are southern states which were at the time Democrat-owned. Essentially, he South was the region of the country to most visibly embrace women in roles of leadership and authority.

Oh, and he first woman to hold a leadership position in the Senate was Margaret Chase Smith. Wanna guess which party she belonged to? And by the way, the first state to ban women's voting? That was New York in 1777.

So basically, the GOP delivered women's suffrage through 24 years of working against Democrats, the first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, and the Democrat states which were the most enthusiastic about supporting women running for Federal office are now among the most solidly Republican in the whole country.

If you won't bother to think before you comment, 99, then you shouldn't comment. Oh, and does it hurt to get smacked upside the head so often? You must be punch drunk by now.

Posted by: Sterling on June 17, 2005 03:30 PM

No, I am giddy, I love you use 1777 as an antidote of the wackjob conservative Christian ethos that dominates the GOP today. You couldn't find anything better in the past 300 years?

But your own people make the best argument. I'll even defer to the ladies:

"The Grand Old Party is more religious cult than political organization."
President of the Alamo City Republican Women's club, 1993

Posted by: 99 on June 17, 2005 03:52 PM

Arent all GOPs (including India's Congress (I) ) cults of somesort....I mean, is it REALLY possible to have politics without an indigenous group culture?

Posted by: Anil CS Rao on June 17, 2005 10:50 PM

Ah, apparently I hit a nerve there, eh Sterling? You are such a humorless little man. I know you've been getting ganged up on other posts recently, but that you take everything so damn seriously is just pathetic. So what was that irked you so? You actually liked her porn blandness or you just wished you had been a dork intern with Heritage back in the day?

Posted by: Marc on June 19, 2005 05:17 PM

Marc, Sterling is right. In fact Sterling, in the South, many (these are almost solely older, white people) will still not now, not ever vote for a Republican. Want to know why kiddies? The Rail Splitter (sorry, but that's one of the best knick-names out there, I just wish I could earn such a rep.) aka Lincoln was a Republican too. And setting the slaves free wasn't real popular with landed slave owners back then.

These days though, segments of the Republican Party have gotten to the shrill extreme, so I'll have to see who runs next time before determining my vote. Sterling, it's funny that even when you are kidding, some just don't get it.

Posted by: Sanford on June 29, 2005 05:28 PM

hmmm really? not many republicans in the south? thats odd, i had another impression, i wonder why. it must be all that crack i and all of us northeastern liberals smoke.

Posted by: huh? on June 29, 2005 06:20 PM

Huh? Re-read what I wrote a little more carefully. I did not indicate one way or the other the political orientations of the South in general you schmuck. I did indicate that in the over 60+ crowd, there is a large population that have never, and never will vote Republican because Lincoln set the slaves free.

Have you ever paid attention to politics? Or are you one of those Rock The Voter's that just started voting in 2004? Remember when it was Ford vs. Carter (1976 in case you want to look it up - here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1976 )? Carter won most of the South idiot. And yes, Jimmy Carter was a Democrat in case you needed that information too. If Gore hadn't been so incredibly un-likeable and such a panty-waste, he probably would have taken the South too.

In the last 20 years though, with the growth of conservative evangelism (primarily a function of being Southern Baptist), the South has seen a real boom in Republican growth. The boom is mainly caused by abortion, now stem cell research, public prayer, and the FCC's lowering moral standards of what is suitable for broadcast according to some.

Posted by: Sanford on June 30, 2005 05:17 PM

I had the pleasure of photographing this beautiful girl recently and while the picture in question may not compliment her, I can tell you that she is very beautiful, sexy, and personality A plus. I photograph ALOT of women and she ranks up there with those I consider to be amongst the best. I am extremely picky on who goes into the pages of my portfolio and she grace 3 pages of my book. Give it and her a break my narrow minded friends.

Posted by: J Seltzer on September 11, 2006 10:10 AM

Get a grip on your man thing and go here, dont obsess over a a face, obsess over the complete package OK?...............OK


Posted by: Jim on October 30, 2006 03:58 PM

She's freakin hot. I LOVE the shots of her see-thru undies; although my mind tells me its been "airbrushed" my loins tell me "wow, look at the size of her clit!"

Posted by: yummy on October 31, 2006 12:06 AM