Seriously, there are even little nips on the bottom:
https://www.whcawical.org/files/2016/03/IRS.gif
It's a different kind of spread eagle pose.
Nah
shareThat seriously looks like a parody of an actual logo. Like when you do a rough sketch of an existing logo and it looks funny.
shareI did have to look it up officialy once I saw it the first time, because the lurid impression I gave was both immediate and felt obvious. Maybe thats just where my mind was at the time. Maybe it was a subconscious influence on the designer!
Breasts are lurid? No wonder women feel objectified.
Much ancient artwork features women garbed in dresses that showcase fully bare breasts. Many scholars theorise that breasts were symbols of power in ancient matriarchies. Once the patriarchy overthrew the peaceful matriarchies they made the female body lurid.
No no, the display pose is whats lurid.
shareP.S. unless said display pose is in a non erotic context like a breast exam.
sharelol. I don’t see breasts in that design. To me it looks like the eagle is posing behind the scales of justice. Anyway, even if they were breasts being assertively displayed, to me it would mean an assertive display of feminine power.
But that’s just me.
P.S. #2... I agree there is nothing inherently lurid about breasts, even the law has trouble with that. The difference between male and female chest is the bulge, yet the nipple+areola rule defines female breast nudity while the bulge is allowed to be displayed uncovered.
So why doesnt the nipple rule apply to men? The world may never know. Hell, a mans bare chest is arousing to many women in many contexts, so it can be sexual still.
Furthermore, I call and raise because I fully disagree with your moralized response to the word lurid. Theres nothing wrong with lurid (except in some obvious contexts, like children)