Just click on her and drag. See, it was the “playing” with her I thought was satanic…or at least playing a not so benevolent god…
And I wasn’t completely in earnest about the misogyny. It just that it was my SO that showed it to me, because he likes playing with women. But that because he’s a sadist and heterosexual not because he’s misogynist .
I think it’s a little misogynist. Why is she in undies if she wasn’t being somehow sexualized? And who sexualizes a completely passive woman (who some have mistaken as dead) who can be manipulated with your mouseclicks and lives in a world where every action causes pain?
Probably because it was easier than rendering an entire outfit, but at least the bikini was keeping her covered.
I have my doubts that it’s sexist/misogynistic. This looks like something I would do, and certainly without spite for my own sex. I used to go to a website where you could build your own little 3D models, experiment with gravity, and let them loose to see what would happen. You could build things that moved very life-like, or very unnatural. They could float, fall, get hit and react, walk on their own, pull on a limb to “jerk” the object around, etc. You couldn’t put a skin on it, you just saw the basic framework of what you made, but honestly, this falling bunch of girl-shaped pixels reminds me very strongly of those little experiments, just with skin. Creepiness aside, I think they did a pretty good job.
I don’t read much into it being a woman. Perhaps the designer was experimenting with making breasts? That takes extra vertices. Maybe it was an experiment gone wrong, and the result was amusing enough to share, if a little creepy.
No, that wasn’t it but that site was a LOT of fun (and similar to the site I mentioned), and after I wrote this post, I was beating my brain trying to remember that name! Thank you!
The other site had a weird name, as well, which I also cannot remember. My computer crashed a couple of weeks ago, and I lost all my bookmarks. That’s what I get for being lazy.