On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna
<cmckenna(a)sucs.org> wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual.
Therefore it is not
pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary
sexual characteristics is not sexual?
Not necessarily. Nudity does not equal sex, the surrounding context is not
sexual, the pose is not inherrently sexual, and the background to the
image is non-sexual, so in this case I'd say there is nothing sexual abou
the image.
Commons does not presently make this distinction
and so your satement is
irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page.
Your agument was about featured status not main page status.
This was in reply to your comment that not everything that is featured
should be on the main page. I am simply stating that there is at present
no distinction between "media that is featured" and "media that can be
shown on the main page".
If you wish to make this
distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the
objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus
then images you object to will not appear on the main page.
Historically we've found allowing some of our more respected and less
juvenile admins to make the call works well.
I don't think that ad hominem attacks are a particuarly good way to win an
argument.
In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing
nothing of the sort.
And which context would that be? I thought we had abolished all the
blind colonies.
Thank you for making another offensive comment.
In answer though, nudity does not equal sex, and sex does not equal
pornography.
According to the description provided by the
creator it does not appear to
be anything of the sort.
It's a long standing observation that artists of many types tend to
avoid specifically stating such facts.
You mean "I think it is sexual, therefore what the artist says is
irrelevant because other artists in the field don't say what I think they
should say."?
The creator is apparently German. I believe that
current German culture is
far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or
British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex
than in these two cultures.
Oh indeed but within the Naturism movement there is such a thing as context
What has this got to do with naturism?
I'm not
aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is
not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored.
If you wish to change this please gain consensus.
Oh if we want to play that game there is no policy stating applying
discretion to what we feature on the main page makes commons censored.
How is not showing certain images on the main page because some people are
offended by them different to censoring the main page for the protection
of people who are offended by certain images?
Okay. I don't understand how this relates to
this image though.
It's possible that you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we
would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual
basis.
What has my (or anyone else's) sexuality got to do with this discussion?
I am not the
one claiming this image is offensive or inapropriate. I am
saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the
laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not
offensive.
So? That doesn't make your position culturally neutral.
Other than being entirely independent of any culture you mean.
----
Chris McKenna
cmckenna(a)sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery