On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@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?)
They illustrate different options.
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-%C2%93mal...
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.
That would seem to be easily fixed, although all seem women here:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Category:Hogtie_bondage
That said, I'm certainly not going to fool around taking the needed pictures.
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...)
Perhaps you could edit in other areas. For example "male gaze" might make an article, or be part of one:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gaze#The_Male_Gaze_and_femini...
People generally edit about what they are interested in.
- (this might be heteronormative, of course the pictures might also be
nice for lesbians)
Best, Lena
Fred