Low culture.

This entry was posted in inequality. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Low culture.

  1. MnM says:

    Size = weight?

  2. tomas says:

    and shouldn’t the x and y be interchanged?

  3. Chris says:

    size as in overall body for women, for just one part of the body for men.

  4. Grant says:

    I think it has to do with one part of the body for both. Many women with extremely large breasts are ashamed of them or otherwise wish to be rid of them. Many men with small penises also feel shame.

  5. She says:

    I THINK that it could go for the overall body of men too. Men want to be big, in the pants yeah, but in height and muscles too. At least, most of the high schoolers I know do.

  6. Justin says:

    Oh, it’s definitely whole-body size. I’m 31, male, and not at all big. I have no doubt that my life would be better in ways that aren’t even immediately obvious if I had even average muscle mass for my height.

  7. Daniel says:

    Shouldn’t size be on the X-axis as the independent variable? Right now, it’s showing that your size is somehow based on how much shame you feel. I get the point, but it took me awhile.

  8. Helen says:

    I figured it’s referring to genital size for both men and women. Vaginoplasty is, unfortunately, a booming business.

  9. Christian H says:

    Yes, the x-axis and y-axis should be inverted! For once that’s a correct criticism!

  10. Rei says:

    Actually, the graph is correct, for women, being large is highly shameful, whereas for men, the opposite is true. This applies to more than genitalia, because let’s face it: What guy wants to be known as scrawny?

  11. Eric says:

    Not sure I entirely agree with the graph. I’d say that you can reach a point in life where extra mass (whole body or otherwise) only gets in the way.

    Maybe it should be a bell curve, with shame being at either end, although, unless the “size” is the result of over-eating, there really shouldn’t be shame in the body size.

    No two bodies are the same…

  12. Visitor says:

    The graph itself needs to be rotated -90 degrees, so that size is indeed the x-axis and shame the y-axis, but simply switching the labels is ineffective, as it changes (and makes wrong) the meaning of the graph.

    As seems to be common with Jessica’s work, there are many applications for the same graph. Genital size works, so does total body size (although one could argue that it depends on muscle vs. fat for men), and I’m sure there are other applications here too. Size of one’s list of sexual partners, for example, would fit this graph too for much of society (though that’s changing).

  13. justmike says:

    You’re a naughty, naughty girl, Ms Hagy!

  14. elgordo42 says:

    The correlation is correct.
    But, yes, it is confusing for those who are slaves to the independent/dependent variable rules, where size would be the input, and shame the output…
    If you are a math person, a simple inversion of the function will flip it over the line y = x and It’s All Good ;-)

  15. shaneoyo says:

    Makes sense to me, and was immediately obvious size refers to a females weight and a guys schlong

  16. Confused says:

    I think better labels would have been nice. If it was genitals for all, it could have said, “y = genital size”. If it meant body size, it shouldn’t have been written.

  17. Foo says:

    My guess? It’s just raw Height. Short guys are ashamed, as are Tall girls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *