This isn't a novel image, this is an image that is objectifying a woman. We're discussing whether or not it should be featured. The idea of checking what type of pictures appear on Commons wasn't to make the point that we shouldn't be novel, it was to make the point that since there are very *few* representations of people, and that we already have a big problem with representation of women in specific and in general, then making *this* (an sexualized objectified picture) our "novel" woman picture is wrong. If we had more diversity of objectifying images on Commons, then adding one more may have been less of an issue. Since we don't, and Commons is usually filled with other types of pictures, then adding this one is really going to be unique -- and if we're doing something unique, I don't quite understand why we need to go back on our attempt to make women comfortable with Wikimedia projects to be novel. I'll be a bit more blunt, but I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm trying to see if I can make the point I was trying to deliver a bit clearer: Putting an objectifying sexualized image on PoTD might be the "novel" approach, but so would be putting porn, or racist photos, or anti LGBT images, etc. Just being "novel" doesn't mean it SHOULD be put in there. This isn't just a partial-nudity picture; this is an offensively objectifying representation of a woman. The fact that using it would be novel means it's great we didn't do it up until now, not that it would be good to start doing it now. That was more my point, I hope I managed to deliver it better. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 8:51 AM, LtPowers <LtPowers_Wiki(a)rochester.rr.com>wrote;wrote: -- No trees were harmed in the creation of this post. But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly inconvenienced during its transmission!

There was an interesting report done into the front covers of 1,000+ copies of Rolling Stone magazine - Equal Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone, originallly printed in the academic journal Sexuality & Culture. One of the categories that they used to rate the magazines was pose with the following criteria: 0 points = model not posed in any way related to sexual activity for example, standing upright 1 point = variety of poses that are suggestive or inviting of sexual activity, including lifting one’s arms overhead and any kind of leaning or sitting 2 points = overtly posed for sexual activity; this includes lying down or, for women, sitting with their legs spread wide open The report shows several pictures and their scores as well as a graph (p. 268) on their overall findings. The line with the solid line with black triangles on it shows how the number of hypersexualized images of women have increased. From: moriel(a)gmail.com Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 14:31:16 -0400 To: powers99(a)alum.rit.edu; gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [LGBT] topless cheesecake on the en.wiki Main Page This isn't a novel image, this is an image that is objectifying a woman. We're discussing whether or not it should be featured. The idea of checking what type of pictures appear on Commons wasn't to make the point that we shouldn't be novel, it was to make the point that since there are very *few* representations of people, and that we already have a big problem with representation of women in specific and in general, then making *this* (an sexualized objectified picture) our "novel" woman picture is wrong. If we had more diversity of objectifying images on Commons, then adding one more may have been less of an issue. Since we don't, and Commons is usually filled with other types of pictures, then adding this one is really going to be unique -- and if we're doing something unique, I don't quite understand why we need to go back on our attempt to make women comfortable with Wikimedia projects to be novel. I'll be a bit more blunt, but I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm trying to see if I can make the point I was trying to deliver a bit clearer: Putting an objectifying sexualized image on PoTD might be the "novel" approach, but so would be putting porn, or racist photos, or anti LGBT images, etc. Just being "novel" doesn't mean it SHOULD be put in there. This isn't just a partial-nudity picture; this is an offensively objectifying representation of a woman. The fact that using it would be novel means it's great we didn't do it up until now, not that it would be good to start doing it now. That was more my point, I hope I managed to deliver it better. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 8:51 AM, LtPowers <LtPowers_Wiki(a)rochester.rr.com> wrote: Are you honestly making the argument that Commons PotD should restrict itself to types of media it has already featured? That's what I infer from your statement "considering that PoTD didn't put any *type* of similar pictures like these". Yes, this is a novel image. That's rather the point. Many Commons contributors believe that their remit encompasses the entire range of human image production, and that includes pictures "trying to sell us something". If this type of image hasn't appeared on PotD before, that's *more* reason to feature it, not less. Powers &8^] -----Original Message----- From: Moriel Schottlender [mailto:moriel@gmail.com] Sent: 17 May 2014 15:35 To: Increasing involvement of LGBT communities and organizing the WikimediaLGBT Outreach Project; Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase theparticipation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [LGBT] topless cheesecake on the en.wiki Main Page I'm also not entirely sure how this relates to LGBT issues, let alone health ones, I may be missing the point (can you clarify further?) She is, also, not quite a swimsuit girl. For one, not many swimmers swim without a top. For another, I have never seen anyone stands in such a pose naturally for long without having severe back pains. This is a sexualized objectified picture and it was taken for this exact purpose. We may argue whether such photos should be included, but let's not pretend this is a professional woman representing her sport... ;) (and yes, I know 'swimsuit model' is a term, I am just rejecting the general term to make the point I think is more important) In any case, out of sheer curiosity I went out and did some research on the Picture of The Day list. As a representing example I went over the entire 2013 year and tagged each picture with a general category (Animals, Locations, Events, etc) and if I found pictures, I tagged them with either "male" or "female" unless the photo was a general one. The data (and graph) is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gu4eZe6yBYa_cQEaf64Rm6IWdSnF4nMSuqf… There's also a pivot table and a graph in the second sheet. I think the conclusion should be obvious: Commons pictures are mostly about animals and vistas. There aren't many pictures of people, and when there are, they're in a professional setting -- either pictures of people in the middle of some sport activity (mostly men, but not a lot anyways) or people doing something professional. All are fully dressed, none are objectified, including the men. All poses are natural or picture-natural (staring at the camera, etc) and none are overly objectified, especially not in a sexual way. None. We could, of course, say that the model is doing something professional -- but the picture is not of her being a model, it is of her posing in an unnatural pose that is *purposefully* sexualized and objectified. It's the sort of picture we see all around us trying to sell us something. Now I, too, don't have a problem with reducing shame, and I (very much) appreciate the image of beautiful women and men. I think having honest and non-shaming discussions about sexual behavior is important for both men and women, same with healthy sexual behavior. But I also think that the context and audience *matters*. Picture of the Day isn't it -- clearly, according to what Picture of the Day usually represents. To be perfectly honest, considering this picture is of a woman that is posing in an unnatural position (anyone ever found herself posing this way casually?) that's aim is strictly for sexualizing and objectifying her, and considering that PoTD didn't put any *type* of similar pictures like these *and* that PoTD picture choices are supposed to represent the Commons community because of their public nature, I am really quite disappointed that this is even a discussion on Commons. Not only that, but the discussion seemed to have moved towards the "if we put this up it will be a shitstorm" rather than thinking *why* it might be a shitstorm, what it represents, what goals the community states it has, what other pictures it posts, and whether the potential "shitstorm" is just panicky women crying foul over nothing, or something a little bit more substantial going on. The whole point of voting about something like this is also problematic, by the way, but that discussion is a whole new nest of snakes that should be discussed separately. This whole thing is very disappointing. On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com> wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com> wrote: Hello, @Moriel - I do not feel strongly about this particular image of a swimsuit girl. I just do not want to propagate a culture of sexual shame, because that kind of culture causes a lot of health problems in the gay male community. There is completely a double standard about the effects of objectifying women versus sexually objectifying males; males simply are not as harmed as women are from this. I regret having to disagree with you in saying that it is always time to talk about sexual health issues because a range of problems including HIV still exist. Hi Lane, I'm a bit confused about this, because I never saw this issue as an LGBT one, but an issue about the sexualization of a female. The image quality is poor. It wasn't the best in the set. No comparable pictures of men have been posted. The image is not included on any articles. The above quote from you really stands out for me though. Can you tell me how this image helps combat sexual shame that gay men have? Can you explain to me in the context of female sexual health why this image is important, and how pictures of beautiful heterosexually-coded women involved in the modelling industry can assist in improving sexual health in the gay and lesbian community? I'm failing to see the connection here, or why bringing up male sexual health and HIV is at all relevant in the context of the discussion of this picture. What am I missing? -- twitter: purplepopple _______________________________________________ LGBT mailing list LGBT(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt Please treat emails sent to this list as confidential. Ask senders for permission before forwarding emails off-list. -- No trees were harmed in the creation of this post. But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly inconvenienced during its transmission! _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- No trees were harmed in the creation of this post. But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly inconvenienced during its transmission! _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap