On 3/2/08, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Steve Bennett
<stevagewp(a)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