> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Fred Bauder <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
>> As to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondage there is no question
>> that people do this, but it is hard to see an overriding public
>> interest
>> in need for information as is present in say, anal sex.
>>
>> Bukkake is at least interesting. I guess all of this stuff can be
>> justified on that basis, seeing how the other half lives, so to speak.
>
> For me, the main problem with the picture is not that they're very
> explicit (because, well, it's about sex), but that there are no
> pictures of men.
>
> There are 5 photos (why do you need 5 anyway?)
> illustrating the
> article on bondage, all are depicting women. Since bondage is about
> being submissive, this implies women are generally or "normally" the
> ones being submissive, which is not true and not a good thing to
> suggest to your readers. Also, it clearly shows who chose the
> pictures: men*. It's the so-called "male gaze":
>
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-“male-gaze”/
>
> For me, looking at the article feels like sneaking into a men's club,
> where (heterosexual) men watch pornography depicting people like me
> and show it to each other. It doesn't feel like it's also a place
> designed for the people like me, I'm only supposed to be depicted on
> the pictures, not to look at them.
> So I feel unwell looking at it, but that's not because the pictures
> are explicit. I would be fine with it if two or three pictures where
> pictures of restrained men.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Category:Hogtie_bondage
That said, I'm certainly not going to fool around taking the needed
pictures.
> Similar problem with the article on bukkake. It says: "The practice
> then spread to gay pornography, in which several men ejaculate on
> another man.[5]Pornographic use of the word has been expanded by the
> lesbian bukkake genre in which several women ejaculate on another
> woman.[13]"
> So why are there only pictures of women, and why does the introduction
> to the article say "Bukkake is a sexual act in which a woman is
> ejaculated on by several men"?
> (Actually, there are also men on the pictures in this case, but the
> pictures are clipped so you only see a very, very small part of their
> bodys. It's clearly about the women.)
>
> Looking at these articles, it just doesn't feel like Wikipedia is from
> people for people, but like it's a boys for boys service. So why
> should I feel encouraged to participate? (Except by sending a photo of
> me naked...)
>
Perhaps you could edit in other areas. For example "male gaze" might make
an article, or be part of one:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gaze#The_Male_Gaze_and_feminist_theory
People generally edit about what they are interested in.
> * (this might be heteronormative, of course the pictures might also be
> nice for lesbians)
>
> Best,
> Lena
>
Fred