"Rude" gestalt optical illusions


51 Responses to “"Rude" gestalt optical illusions”

  1. egocentrik says:

    hah, got it. “rude gestalt” as a replacement for porn mirage.

  2. nosehat says:

    I stared at that a long time, expecting to see a duck or a rabbit somewhere. :p

  3. CharredBarn says:

    Wow. Oddly, this post should probably have a NSFW warning, even though everything is only implied. Even implied shit can bite you in the ass anymore.

    • syncrotic says:

      That’s not how the word ‘anymore’ works.

      But anyway, I too saw the metallic penis.

      • CharredBarn says:

        “That’s not how the word ‘anymore’ works.”

        Well, if you’re saying it’s nonstandard usage, you’re right. Of course, you realize the same thing is true of many or most colloquialisms, right?

        From a purely logical standpoint, “anymore” should mean precisely the opposite of  “not anymore,” since (obviously) “not” simply negates the word it modifies. So, in that sense, I would say that’s exactly how the word works — but not how it’s normally used. 

        • adamnvillani says:

          Well, except I’d never before seen anybody use it that way. So it’s neither standard nor any colloquial that I’d seen before, although I guess with the link to “positive anymore” there are some people who use it that way.

          • CharredBarn says:

            Check the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_anymore

            The positive use of “anymore” dates back to at least the 1800s. (Also, whether or not you or I have personally ever heard any given usage before is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it’s standard, right?)

          • Guest says:

            not really. I mean that in a non standard way though.

          • says:

            In its entry for “anymore,” Merriam-Webster states that “in many regions of the United States the use of anymore…is quite common in positive constructions,” and that it is actually “now reported to be widespread in all speech areas of the United States except New England.”


          • ChicagoD says:

            Obviously you don’t live in the U.S. Midwest. Anymore you hear that all the time.

            Makes me insane.

        • Chris Bell says:

          With respect, since you’re now apparently keen to talk logic, “not anymore” wouldn’t make much sense either. It’s not the time element of your sentence that requires modifying. The opposite of the intended meaning would be “Not even implied shit can bite you in the ass any more.” What I assumed you originally meant was “Even implied shit can bite you in the ass now/these days/nowadays.” Even colloquialisms generally require some innate sense for them to be generally adopted.

          • CharredBarn says:

            I don’t know what you mean by “the intended meaning.” Whose intent are we talking about? Because if it’s my intent (and since I made the assertion, it is — right?) then your revised sentence fails to correctly express what I was saying. Well, look. If you reject my logic (fair enough) then I’ll fall back on the fact that people have been using the positive anymore for a hundred years or more, and it’s apparently common usage fairly widely. So to say the word “anymore” doesn’t work that way doesn’t square with empirical evidence to the contrary.

          • CharredBarn says:

            My point is: you didn’t assume what I meant. You understood what I meant, so my usage seems to work, whether or not it’s not logical. (But it is.)

          • Chris Bell says:

            So you didn’t even mean “Even implied shit can bite you in the ass nowadays”? Then I really am confused.

            You have an interesting notion of logic, I will say that.

          • CharredBarn says:

            No — that’s exactly what I meant. I thought the complaint was that I can’t legitimately substitute “anymore” for “nowadays.” Because the word doesn’t “work” that way. Doesn’t work for whom?

          • Chris Bell says:

            That was syncrotic’s complaint. I wasn’t complaining. I was querying your clarification. I accept there’s a colloquial usage of a positive “anymore” that’s widespread in places other than those I’ve been in. That fact alone doesn’t make it logical. Neither is your clarification:

            From a purely logical standpoint, “anymore” should mean precisely the opposite of  “not anymore,” since (obviously) “not” simply negates the word it modifies.

            “Even implied shit can bite you in the ass not anymore” makes no sense, although I can elicit possible intended meanings from it. Accurately guessing what someone means isn’t synonymous with a usage working. I can guess what people think they mean when they say something is “very unique”. That doesn’t make it logical.

          • CharredBarn says:

            Ok, I think we’re talking about two different things. You’re right, language isn’t like math — you can’t stick a negative operator into a sentence wherever you like and sound literate. But that has to do with syntax which is (I think) a matter of convention, rather than logic (which is immutable.) But you’re welcome to see things differently.

          • Chris Bell says:

            Thanks. What about that woman in the car with the legs though, eh?

          • CharredBarn says:

            OK — one last point, since I’m sure this is starting to bore you. “I will die not today” sounds weird. “I will die. Not today.” sounds fine. That’s just syntax. The period does’t change the logical structure of the assertion. It exists merely as a convention. It’s just closer to the way people normally write and speak in English, but not universally. In other languages, the word order would be different. That has to do with syntax. But regardless of language, A=A. That is a matter of logic, and is true in every language and culture. Anyway, IMHO.

          • Nagurski says:

            Yeah, but who’s on first?

      • CharredBarn says:

        I guess I could have saved a lot of time just by looking this up first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_anymore

        My friend, you stand soundly corrected! 

  4. irksome says:

    Her car must have a heavy clutch.

  5. The cars interior colour is the same as her skin (see dash). So what looks like a ‘photoshopped’ mess on the right is simply the back of the chair, and her legs are to the left.

  6. retepslluerb says:

    Okay, I don’t get it. What am I supposed to see here, besides a woman sitting in  car?

    • StetsonG says:

      The seat is similar in color to her skin, and at first glance it can look like she’s sitting with her legs spread.

      • Tim Tate says:

        That’s…. not the illusion. I mean, yeah maybe you’re seeing that but look further up and to the left.

        • penguinchris says:

          Um, pretty sure the thing that might look like a penis is not the intended illusion. Remember the “rabbit/duck illusion”? You see either a rabbit or a duck depending on how you look at it (or if you turn it around, or whatever the case may be). The more well-known one I think is a beautiful girl that turns into an old witch depending on how you look at it.

          In this image, you see either her sitting in the car with her legs crossed, or her sitting in her car with her legs spread open (and wearing a sparkly one-piece dance costume apparently), depending on how you look at it. So clearly that’s the intended illusion (whether it was a photo shot with that in mind or not – it seems to just be a photo from an Asian car show and someone spotted that later).

    • Just_Ok says:

      I don’t get it either. But I see the porn mirage.

    • The old rabbit duck drawing, where it changes from rabbit to duck depending on how you look at it. That image is on her left breast. You  have to know what you’re looking for though.

  7. Ambiguity says:

    This isn’t your dad’s rabbit-duck illusion.

    You didn’t know my dad!

  8. Huwman says:

    I think the spread legs thing is the, er, intended unintended illusion but it does kind of look like a metallic penis coming out of her shoulder too. I’m afraid I have the kind of mind that can start to project weirdness onto anything if I look long enough.

  9. Eark_the_Bunny says:

    These are not so much illusions but merely bad photography like when a photographer takes a shot of someone and it looks like there is a tree sticking out of the top of their head.  That is bad form unless there actually is a tree sticking out their head.  Then it is time for an aspirin and the really big tweezers.

  10. eviladrian says:

    An oldie but a goodie.

  11. Brian C. says:

    The ultimate “rude” gestalt optical illusion: http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/swweeeetpig.jpg

  12. Those 2 other examples given in the comments are awesome.

    • David Pescovitz says:

      Agreed! These kinds of porn mirages would make for a fun little photo book. I could imagine it on the backs of hipster toilets everywhere. Er, wait.

  13. rattypilgrim says:

    Google “The Medium is the Message” and subliminal advertizing. Still going strong after 40+ years.

  14. Jim Smith says:

    Charred Barn is right, the wiki entry makes it clear, but to most people it sounds illiterate!

  15. Lindsey Rowe says:

    Holly F, I feel incompetent right now. Does anyone else after that debate?

  16. kartwaffles says:

    People on the internet argue about the dumbest things anymore. Don’t yinz know we’ve been talkin like dis in Pittsburgh da whole time n’at?

  17. MDwebguy says:

    That damn sure isn’t anything belonging to my dad.  But I sure do wish I belonged to her.

Leave a Reply