La trahison de l'image (The treason of the image) 

Alors, que'est-que c'est?  Je pense que sont les sacs de la chirurgie pour gonfler les tetons.

This and the other threads on how buildings represent body parts only go to show that some people think of things sexual 24/7.  And, since architecture students, designers, and architects have this above the fray image of smugness and intellectual superiority to maintain, they are more sexually repressed and channel it in weird ways.  That's my theory.

Zaha Hadid as René Magritte? She provides the suggestion and then denies it to us as does Magritte with his this-is-not-a-pipe drawing of a pipe.  

Resemblance has a " model , " an
originaf element that orders and hierarchizes the in­
creasingly less faithful copies that can be struck from
it. Resemblance presupposes a primary reference that
prescribes and classes. The similar develops in series
that have neither beginning nor end, that can be fol­
lowed in one direction as easily as in another, that
obey no hierarchy, but propagate themselves from
small differences among small differences. Resem­
blance serves representation, which rules over it; si­
militude serves repetition, which ranges across it.
Resemblance predicates itself upon a model it must
return to and reveal; similitude circulates the simu­
lacrum as an indefinite and reversible relation of the
similar to the similar. - From Michel Foucault's This is not a Pipe

I looked this up because this very idea came up during the How We Hate on Architecture Now . Funny that I never read this particular Foucault text before because it is exactly what I had (or perhaps wanted to have) in mind (Note: I had read parts of his The Order of Things but he had - if i recall correctly- not mentioned the non-hierarchy of similitude)  with this post in the above-mentioned thread/newsfeed: 

again, similitude is a dumb (that is, non-connotative and non-denotative)  thing, and it perpetuates in a open non-hierarchical relationship.

a ball looks like a melon that look like an orange that looks like an ostrich egg that looks like the moon that looks like a circular pool of water, that looks like a circular middle ages shield that looks like a pearl that looks like an eye that looks like bead that looks like an orange that looks like a ball

the vagina looks like this project just a much as this project looks like a vagina. it also looks like an eye socket, like a clam...

the issue  is that the pop imagination is more taken aback by the stadium-to-vagina resemblance because the vagina constitutes a more powerful and -obviously,however one seeks to be independent- irreverent trope than does an eye socket. thus the hierarchy is not a result of resemblance per se but of the disposition within the space of the imagination. the space warps around the great sun that is the vagina and so we are more likely to orbit around it than enter other force fields.

But now, I'm thinking, basing on Foucalt's text....is not resemblance the outcome of the above-mentioned space-wrapping reorganizing similitude hierarchically...

observant, i actually think that, on the contrary, it is a not really unsexual similitude/resemblance. Who said that a vagina/penis or a resemblance to a vagina/penis was at all -or is necessarily-sexual? who said that representations of the body were necessarily sexual?  in fact, i read that your assumed association implicates you yourself in reading a necessary sexual interest in the resemblance. the body is also disgusting, filthy, infantile, rotting, dead, shameful, angry, scary, idiotic, old, funny, nostalgic, formal....sexual is merely one aspect. 

i don't believe the interest in the vagina resemblance is largely sexual in nature. perhaps  it is closer to scatological humour than sexual. by that (please don't misunderstand me - i don't mean vaginas make poopoo), i mean it could be a humour based on transgression of a morality - which makes it a moral humour (since it is denominated by morality where genitals tend to be repressed entities). perhaps, you can call it a freudian humour if you approach it from the point of view. in itself, that would not be a sexual reference - although it might speak a lot about our psycho-sexualities.  

For me, the fact that it resembles a vagina means no more than resembling any other object (i don't have a sense of humour perhaps)... for the world is exactly that - an anthology of similitudes and resemblances. This just happens to resemble (i'll use the word now loosely) a vagina. similitude is the dumbest thing ever. 

I would have never likened the shape of that building to a vagina but now that I saw the sentence "this is not a vagina", every time I think about this building vagina will come to my mind. What would happen if you said to someone "don't think of an elephant"? She will think of an elephant of course...

So many stadiums have a slit in their roofs, covering the spectators, but leaving the playing field open, but no one came up with this observation for a stadium before.  Now, I, too, will think of this structure as such a body part.  However, I will also forget about this structure, being so far away and not being relevant to me, unless my belief system is wrong, I reincarnate, and find myself in Qatar.

Built to actual size.