7

enter image description here

You may have seen this image on the web or in an email with the following description:

Scientific research showed that children can’t recognise erotic scenes. Instead they see 9 dolphins. On the other hand, adult’s mind is rather “corrupted” so adult person may have problems spoting 9 dolphins at first eye glaze. If you have trouble spoting dolphins in the first 6 seconds, then your mind is heavily corrupted, and you are seriously obsessed with sex! …better go and practice with easier examples.

Is this a pervert test? If it's not, what's the best way to refute the claim? The beauty of this test is that trying to refute it makes you look like a pervert.

SIMEL
  • 29,037
  • 14
  • 123
  • 139
Soup
  • 211
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
  • 15
    Dolphins are pervs. You're corrupt either way... – Shog9 Sep 01 '11 at 16:53
  • the problem with images with this is that, when you're going in, you're already conditioned to see the "perverted" image instead of the "normal" image – DForck42 Sep 01 '11 at 17:08
  • 29
    It's only perverted because those 2 people are covered in dolphins :) – Monkey Tuesday Sep 01 '11 at 17:47
  • 2
    According to my dictionary, pervert is `a sexual practice which isn't useful to produce children` (partner of wrong sex, animals, masturbation or using the wrong parts of the body, to be clear). Looking at images isn't pervert at all, as well as thinking about sex. People aren't pervert, but practices are, but there isn't something wrong about it. We don't need that much reproduction, as we need joy. A society with much erotical, sexual pictures will train every person to see the pairing. Maybe 'primitive people' (pardon my poor English), where the bare breast is no sexual signal, don't see it – user unknown Sep 01 '11 at 18:43
  • 12
    If seeing naked people instead of dolphins is wrong, I don't want to be right. Also, it seems to me that seeing an erotic image instead of dolphins is a good thing (for the sake of the species, of course). Not being able to pick up on cues like this=less reproduction? Given that the definition of "pervert" is closely tied to a particular (a) time and (b) place it seems like a pretty anachronistic question. – nalgenegirl Sep 01 '11 at 20:22
  • 10
    Where is this claim that it's a 'pervert' test? There's a lot of difference between saying "children don't recognize the sexual image" and "only perverts recognize the sexual image"? – DJClayworth Sep 01 '11 at 20:23
  • Children may not get eroticism (a questionable premise), but they do know what nudity is. Thumbs down. – horatio Sep 01 '11 at 20:55
  • 1
    It's two people in a passionate moment. I think it's quite beautiful. – Mike Dunlavey Sep 02 '11 at 01:02
  • 3
    @user Your dictionary is seriously outdated. Quick test: how does it define “gay”? “nigger”? “bratwurst”? – Konrad Rudolph Sep 02 '11 at 09:12
  • 1
    @user unknown: that maybe could be used as a definition of *perversion*, not *pervert*. The OED defines *pervert* as *One who suffers from a perversion of the sexual instinct.* and *perversion* as *A disorder of sexual behaviour in which satisfaction is sought through channels other than those of normal heterosexual intercourse*. Obviously I agree this is a very stale definition, but... – nico Sep 02 '11 at 18:13
  • Am I missing something, or has the term bratwurst undergone a meaning change in the last 100 years? It is that delicious yet fatty sausage that competes with hot dogs, no? –  Sep 02 '11 at 20:26
  • @nico: Even that definition doesn't suggest that enjoying pictures of nude people is perverted. It does say that masturbating to it is perverted. I think this question needs some reasonable definition of pervert that includes looking at nude people in an obviously sexual moment, and I don't think the OP is going to find one. – David Thornley Sep 03 '11 at 01:50
  • @David: I was merely speaking of the definition of *pervert* versus *perversion*. Mine was only a language remark. – nico Sep 03 '11 at 07:43
  • 5
    I think the question falsely equates sexual awareness with perversion. Apart from that what's wrong with being turned on by dolphins? – matt_black Oct 14 '11 at 18:35
  • 1
    "Scientific research showed that children can’t recognise erotic scenes. Instead they see 9 dolphins." Sounds like a bogus claim. Where's the science? I did this test on my (preteen) sister, and while she didn't identify _the scene_ as erotic, she clearly saw two people embracing, something she's seen more often that dolphins. There's so many things wrong with this question. – Zano Dec 04 '11 at 11:56
  • Of course this is perverse, we all know about dolphins and their dirty blow holes: ["Do dolphins have homosexual “blowhole” sex?"](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/9042/49) ... jk – Mark Rogers May 06 '15 at 14:35

1 Answers1

11

The picture is an optical illusion created by Sandro Del Prete. He is an artist specialising in this kind of endeavours. In his own words:

“Everything we see can be seen in another way. Therefore, I ask myself; isn't everything an illusion anyway? Reality is but a question of perception, and perception inevitably varies according to one’s viewpoint. Different viewpoints lead to different dimensions.”

—source

If you look up the image on his web site, you will see that he confirms this, and that the image is certainly not a "pervert" test.

He does state that probably kids will be more likely to see dolphins and adults the sensual embrace, however he does not say this is backed up by any scientific research, so I am going to take that statement as artistic speculation and not hard fact.

This illustration incorporates a figure/ground perceptual reversal, and is an excellent example of one’s viewpoint being primed through experience. If one is young and innocent, they will most likely perceive a group of dolphins. Adults, on the other hand, will probably see a couple in a suggestive embrace.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428