When my boyfriend and I were first getting together, he told me he had a shameful confession to make: Sometimes, he spent lonely nights just clicking through random entries on Wikipedia. "How nerd is that?" he asked.
"Very," I said. "I do it, too." And then cartoon hearts burst out above our heads.
Those who aren't as likely to find an actual girlfriend now have a wiki of their own to pore over on lonely nights: Chickipedia. "The wiki of hot women" has its own featured entries, categories such as "theHOTTEST" and "mostWANTED," and even a "Random Chick" button at the top of the page for your browsing pleasure. Profiles include semi-NSFW pictures (duh) and bios including each chick's astrological sign, hobbies, "hookups" and measurements -- with a line drawing of a woman's torso in case you didn't know what order they go in. I'm not sure where they got those measurements, especially in light of their claim that '80s starlet Helen Slater has a 21-inch waist (which, according to clothing size charts I've looked at, corresponds to about a girls' size 5). But the important thing is that they're there, and below the headless torso is a link for "similar chicks," so readers can zero in on body types that promote optimum wanking.
We've taken criticism for saying "Ewww" too much around here, but seriously? Ewww. Part of me is hesitant to post the link and give them the traffic at all, but I just can't resist noting this absolutely perfect illustration of how women's bodies are treated as objects for male viewing. Yesterday, Simon Barnes complained in the Times Online that the LZR Racers worn by Olympic swimmers this year -- which not only dramatically improve performance but are better for the athlete's bodies than traditional suits -- flatten women's breasts and thus decrease his enjoyment of watching them compete. And yesterday, I really didn't think I could find a less subtle example of the ludicrious objectification of women's bodies than that. Way to top it, Chickipedia.
Shares