<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.DEB.2.00.1105161529310.5276@silver.sucs.swan.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Pornography is defined as:
"The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole
intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not
pornographic.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not here, as I'm sure others aren't, to argue about what
pornography is or was (I have my undergrad in a liberal arts major,
I've had this conversation, ugh, too many times to count). But I
will say - if breasts aren't sexual, then your sex drive must be
dramatically different then a good portion of the population!<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.DEB.2.00.1105161529310.5276@silver.sucs.swan.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">No, within the context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are
interpreting it as "low level errotica".
In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort.
According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to
be anything of the sort.
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ah, here we are again, prudish Americans... the country that created
and has exported<a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28TV_series%29">
</a><i><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28TV_series%29">Jersey
Shore</a>.</i> /cry<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.DEB.2.00.1105161529310.5276@silver.sucs.swan.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
We are trying to demonstrate that commons is not a sexualised enviroment.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">ease do so in an objective and culturally independent manner.
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is a sexual environment - this is one of the comments approving
the image "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">i like her big tits"<br>
<br>
Take that as you will! And if that is enough for an image to be
nominated as a featured image, then I guess I've been missing
the goal of Commons after all. <br>
</span></span><br>
#wikilove,<br>
<br>
Sarah<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch">Wikipedia
Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region<br>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art</a><br>
-- <br>
</font>
<div><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><span
style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">Sarah Stierch Consulting</span></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><span
style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">Historical, cultural &
artistic research, advising & event planning.</span></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><span
style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">------------------------------------------------------</span></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><a
style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);"
href="http://www.sarahstierch.com/">http://www.sarahstierch.com/</a></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>