From: Ben Domenech
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time: 1:20 PM
This attempts to argue that Kim Kardashian’s Paper cover is actually a subversive act, as it is meant to demonstrate that her butt isn’t fake. I was not aware that this was a hugely debated topic in need of resolution, but thanks for doing that for us, Paper.
From: Mollie Hemingway
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time: 1:26 PM
Also, having looked (you know, a dozen times or so — click, close, reopen, repeat) at the amazing picture of her butt, this in *no* way would demonstrate that.
I never for a moment thought her backside was fake until I saw what seemed like photoshopped pics on the cover of a magazine.
(I’m a huge fan of big butts.)
I have already written too much.
From: Ben Domenech
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time: 1:27 PM
Yeah, I agree with you Mollie on all counts. Photoshopped to hell. Completely different than the Grace Jones pic that Vice author compares it to.
I’m all about that bass, but that bass has reverb.
From: Mollie Hemingway
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time: 1:37 PM
Why am I reading this?
“what is high culture now? Does it even exist? In a world where our new celebrities are self-made vloggers who talk about literally anything on YouTube and generate millions of followers, how can we differentiate between what is ‘high and what is ‘low’?”
This makes no sense.
Also, I don’t want to turn into Zapruder here, but the photo shows a fairly obvious “break” in between her booty and her waist, suggesting they made one bigger or one smaller.
Please stop me.
From: Ben Domenech
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time: 1:41 PM
High Culture: How does it work?
From: Heather Wilhelm
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time 1:48 PM
How weird…just this morning, I was trying to dig in my brain for that sociological/anthropological/form-of-art term where sex characteristics are exaggerated. Is there a term for this, or am I making it up?
The photoshop is strong with this one.
From: Mollie Hemingway
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time 1:55 PM
I hate to link to Wikipedia but is this it?
Also, what’s interesting about this photo is that it’s so amazingly provocative and interesting but it’s kinda-sorta not as sexy for me as I expected.
Like, I like KK, don’t have negative feelings about her, neither do I have strong positive feelings about her, but I think she’s pretty and all that. Have always thought I loved her bod. And neither of these photos actually “do it” for me.
I like the photo in the same way I kind of like the Grace Jones ones, to be honest. Not surprised they’re the same photographer.
I find them sexual but not as titillating as you’d expect, maybe?
From: David Harsanyi
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time 1:57 PM
Um. Was there a trigger warning for this thread?
From Heather Wilhelm
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time 2:06
Thank you, Mollie. This is what I was thinking of. …This is the article that got me thinking about it.
From Mollie Hemingway
Subject: Warning: KimK
Time 2:12
So as it happens James Poulos is capturing something I was fumbling my way through:
I think the untold story of Kim's butt may be that it's actually de-sexualizing "ass." Ass for ass's sake. Kim Kantdashian
— JAMES ❄ POULOS (@jamespoulos) November 12, 2014
At press time, the conversation had devolved into a discussion of “contraptions” that can give you “shelf butt.”
