[WikiEN-l] So, why do we provide porn?

[Steve Bennett]

On 3/2/08, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  Here's something to discuss:
>  >  a) Do you think an amateur photo is necessary to explain the concept
>  >  of "woman masturbating"?
>
>
> If it's a free photo and a good photo, who cares if it's shot by an
>  amateur or professional.

I clearly mean "amateur" in the sense of poor quality, not in the
sense of unpaid work.

>  >  b) How many images do you think is enough?
>
>
> Commons doesn't work that way. It's simply a collection of free media.
>  Should we complain that we have too much free media?

Yes, if it's low quality or is extremely similar. Would we *really*
want 500 near-identical amateur (again, in the sense of "happy snap"
rather than "extremely dedicated hobbyist") photos of Notre Dame?

> Ok, I made this point before, but perhaps it didn't register: there is
>  absolutely NOTHING wrong with female masturbation, and to suggest that
>  putting up photos of female masturbation is comparable to putting up
>  images of someone being brutally murdered is something that I find
>  very offensive.

Whether or not there is something wrong with X is not the same as
whether there is something wrong with us providing photos of X. I'll
leave it at that.

>  There are a lot of people who are ashamed of their sexuality, and
>  there are a lot of girls (and boys for that matter) who have been
>  taught that it is "dirty" to give yourself pleasure and their lives

That's some kind of moral argument which is irrelevant here.

Steve