Ha! Ok, shibari and rope bondage..."porn" on Wikipedia..etc.. People pay money for photos like this.
This form of bondage is often dominated (no pun intended) by the male tying up the female. It's going to be a lot tougher to get pictures of guys tied up than women, and I do think it's funny that we have to have that many photographs of the women when I can't have more than one image up of a contemporary work of art (there's currently a "discussion" taking place about allowing visual arts to have galleries for works, but of course, that gets shot down - they say it's "decorative"!). I think this shows that males do dominate Wikipedia and the contributing photographers of these images are men who shoot female models.
I searched for "Lesbian pornography" and got this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_pornography#Lesbianism_in_contemporary_...
Note that notable "lesbian porn stars" have no cited sources, which is entertaining IMHO.
Sarah
On 2/7/2011 3:55 PM, Lena ... wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@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-%E2%80%9C...
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.
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...)
- (this might be heteronormative, of course the pictures might also be
nice for lesbians)
Best, Lena
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap