It was easier for me to make heads and tails of it after inverting the colors.
Saving you some time in The Gimp, you can look at the logo on the Microsoft Github page, where the colors are inverted compared to the website: https://github.com/kisslinux/
I'm having exactly the same problem. Even after reading the description of it below, I can't seem to recognize any shape in it. I'm wondering why is that so: is it something about this image? For me it's just imperscrutabile, just a weird bunch of lines. Weird... or perhaps just bad design.
I don't want to overanalyze this, but there is a small dark upward bump between the breasts which makes the white stuff look like a bra or bikini top to me.
Note also how there is black below it as it wraps around to the back. If all that black space were her right arm, it would have a bump in the middle, and she would hold it in a very awkward position with the hand wrapping around to her back below her left arm. Seems less likely to me.
The upward bump at the top is the line between her breasts, you can see it in the painting i linked too, but the logo is black and white so it is more obvious. It could be thinner but seems that all lines on it were drawn with the same width. The upward bump at the bottom is the silhouette her breasts are making on her right forearm as a background. Imagine if [1] or [2] was tilted a bit forward and the right forearm was below her breasts. In both of these paintings the breast silhouettes are visible due to shading even though the colors are soft and they aren't tilted like the woman in the logo. Again since the logo is black and white it makes the silhouettes more pronounced since it relies on them for definition.
The black below is her arm from the elbow to the hand. The hand is just at the bottom right of the image with the line going in a /| shape right below the elbow of the left (right as we see it) arm. The tip is the fingers. They look a bit too long but i think it is mainly due to the line width.
The anatomy could have been better (the neck is a bit too long, the left shoulder is a bit too rotated, the left upper arm is a bit too short) and a couple of lines are too long that can be distracting, but overall it is very obvious to me that this is a pose with a tilted head, right arm on stomach and below breasts touching the side/back, left arm rotated a bit forward, on top of second arm with a slight angle in the elbow.
I mean, it could be a bikini but it also could be a dress like in all the images i linked at. There is not enough detail to say one way or another, the only hint is that the image is inspired by 40s pinup posters and at least from a Google Images search one or two had girls wear just a bra or bikini. All others use full clothes and dresses.
Context. There are lots of pumpkins out there, but a pumpkin would be a weird logo for a Linux distribution named Kiss. Lots of people have electric stoves, but an electric stove would be a weird logo for a Linux distribution. There are also lots of men with great bodies, but a nude male torso would also be a weird logo for a Linux distribution. The only reason you are not very surprised by a half-dressed woman is that half-dressed women are so ubiquitous in our media.
This logo has nothing to do with Linux, nor with kissing (you can't even see lips because the face is cut off to put the cleavage in the focus). It's only about transporting and reinforcing the idea that one of the main roles of women in society is to be something pretty for men to look at. Always, everywhere, without any context. Oh, and you know what's prettier that a nerdy woman with glasses and a hoodie? A woman wearing a bikini! Because we can.
> This logo has nothing to do with Linux, nor with kissing
And it does not have to! Look at the logo of other distributions, what do they have to do with Linux, other than being the logo of a Linux distribution? Sigh.
> It's only about transporting and reinforcing the idea that one of the main roles of women in society is to be something pretty for men to look at.
No, this is only what YOU BELIEVE it means. I did not think about that at all, it is just your own interpretation (that may be shared with other people). You see what you want to see, it does not make it so.
> Look at the logo of other distributions, what do they have to do with Linux, other than being the logo of a Linux distribution?
They all have to do with the name of the distribution: Red Hat has a red hat, Alpine has the Alps, Ubuntu (a term having to do with solidarity) has people holding hands.
Kiss doesn't have a logo that shows kissing or lips. It has disembodied boobs.
Again: If Kiss had a stove as its logo, or diapers, or a half empty box of chocolates, someone would post here "that's a strange logo for something called Kiss", and you would probably more likely upvote them than bother to argue against them. Only sexualized women are always considered appropriate by some people, completely without any context.
Sure, you brought up a few Linux distributions whose logo is related to the name itself. I am pretty sure there are A LOT that do not have a logo related to the name. Then again, why does it even matter?
Plus, KISS is an abbreviation, it does not refer to the word "kiss".
> someone would post here "that's a strange logo", and you would probably more likely upvote them than bother to argue against them.
No, I would just ignore them, and I am not interested in arguing about taste either.
You would ignore any other weird logo. Yet you feel conpelled to defend this one. You are making my point for me: Objectification of women has a special protected status in society.
No, I said I would ignore people saying "that's a strange logo", there is not much you can respond to it. You might ask why, but I am not interested. This conversation, is a tad different, do not you think? If you do not, may I suggest you read it again from top to bottom?
> You are making my point for me: Objectification of women has a special protected status in society.
Holy shit... OK. I hope you do realize that you came to this conclusion by a false assumption, see above. I am only reacting to your statements, if defending it is a side-effect, so be it, I do not give a damn. But you thinking that it has to do with "objectification of women" is quite a tell of YOUR BELIEFS, not mine. It is what you see, it is your interpretation, it has nothing to do with me. I will not respond to any of your future comments.
