It would make a perfect pairing for the gender neutral present model.
Although the present model does match the aura of people without balls such as the trashmouth plebes modeling after jimmy kimmel.
The new proposed model would express perfectly the perception most of America has for the female kimmels, those self-worshipping, pants dropping, ego-driven prostitute who yearn for another trip to the casting couch.
: I remember seeing this artifact, some 20 odd years ago, and
: smirking to myself that they could have used 'Jenny Craig'
: back then. Of course we all know that voluptuous goddesses
: or Buddha fat gods were used to show fertility (for man and
: beast) wealth, prosperity and a good ol harvest to get fat
: on!
: Fakebook, GROW UP!! Let Venus be who she is ..
: ****************************
:
: 1 March, 2018 - 18:57 ashley cowie
: A 30,000-year-old carving of a voluptuous naked woman known as
: the “Venus of Willendorf” statuette, has been censored by
: Facebook as “dangerous pornography”.
: Discovered in the early 20th century near the Austrian village
: of Willendorf this prized ancient artifact is the holy
: grail of prehistoric art, but now, it’s been censored by
: Facebook as “dangerous pornography” messaged Laura Ghianda,
: the user of the banned image, reported the Daily Mail .
: Yes, you did read that right, and I will patiently wait for
: you to finish your facepalm!
: Director general of the Natural History Museum in Vienna,
: Christian Koeberl, told reporters in a statement that the
: 4-inch statue from the early stone age “is the icon of the
: Museum” and he went so far as to say it was “the most
: popular and best-known prehistoric representation of a
: woman worldwide,” according to a report in the Daily Mail .
: Female nude, Venus of Willendorf 22000 – 24000 BC, is the
: pride of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna. Image: S.
: Zucker ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 )
: The censorship fiasco began late last December when Italian
: arts activist Laura Ghianda posted a picture of the Venus
: of Willendorf on Facebook. She was delighted to see the
: post going viral and then it vanished like it didn’t exist.
: Speaking of how she felt when her post was censored for
: being "dangerously pornographic” Ghianda said “The war
: on human culture and modern intellectualism will not be
: tolerated.”
: Supporting Ghianda's disgust at Facebook, staff at The Natural
: History Museum also voiced their outrage and according to
: the Daily Mail, they said in a statement: “We think that an
: archaeological object, especially such an iconic one,
: should not be banned from Facebook because of
: "nudity", as no artwork should be.”
: Are we really to think that after 30,000 years of nudity, this
: rare and priceless prehistoric fertility symbol is censored
: as dangerous porn. Has our culture regressed to such a
: shockingly low level that there are actually humans out
: there who need to be protected from clay figurines? Surely
: this was the call of an algorithm and not a human being
: with the godlike powers to flick out of existence anything
: he or she disagrees with? In reality, it was an algorithm
: that shunned the post and a team of demigods who buried it.
: Recently leaked documents on how Facebook deals with “violent,
: explicit and harassing content” were published in the
: Guardian and exposed the challenges faced by the social
: network in policing nearly 2 billion users. The Guardian’s
: report illustrated how ‘stressful and fast-paced” the
: environment is for content moderators at Facebook. “They
: often only have 10 seconds to review something, and the
: guidelines that govern what is acceptable on the site are
: not always consistent.”
: This is all well and good Mr Zuckerberg, but what is really
: weird here is that although a super stressed 20-something
: year old initially banned the post as “dangerous
: pornography,” a simple button press could have reversed
: that decision. Because no such reversal was taken, we now
: know that in a Californian think tank somewhere in
: Facebook’s HQ, someone decided the “Venus of Willendorf”
: was indeed “dangerously pornographic.”
: Are we really to think that after 30,000 years of nudity, this
: rare and priceless prehistoric fertility symbol is censored
: as dangerous porn. Has our culture regressed to such a
: shockingly low level that there are actually humans out
: there who need to be protected from clay figurines? Surely
: this was the call of an algorithm and not a human being
: with the godlike powers to flick out of existence anything
: he or she disagrees with? In reality, it was an algorithm
: that shunned the post and a team of demigods who buried it.
: Recently leaked documents on how Facebook deals with “violent,
: explicit and harassing content” were published in the
: Guardian and exposed the challenges faced by the social
: network in policing nearly 2 billion users. The Guardian’s
: report illustrated how ‘stressful and fast-paced” the
: environment is for content moderators at Facebook. “They
: often only have 10 seconds to review something, and the
: guidelines that govern what is acceptable on the site are
: not always consistent.”
: This is all well and good Mr Zuckerberg, but what is really
: weird here is that although a super stressed 20-something
: year old initially banned the post as “dangerous
: pornography,” a simple button press could have reversed
: that decision. Because no such reversal was taken, we now
: know that in a Californian think tank somewhere in
: Facebook’s HQ, someone decided the “Venus of Willendorf”
: was indeed “dangerously pornographic.”
