[Gendergap] Implications and solutions... Hardcore images essay - HELP!

[carolmooredc at verizon.net]

While I had a problem with general discussion of the topic, once I got 
to Bukkake article, a term I never had heard of before, I could easily 
see the problem and that there are needed solutions both to make it 
inviting to women and to discourage any kind of sexism related to 
extensive editng of these articles.  (After looking at a dozen of these 
articles in last couple days I noticed I've had run ins on other types 
of articles with a few of the editors that were uncomfortable.)

First, note that Bukkake is an example of the infamous "circle jerk" (a 
notable male only activity with lots of WP:RS) but not only is there *no 
article about it,* but the term forwarded to an article about people 
masturbating each other - not even accurate.

And of course Gay Bukkake which I just searched and has WP:RS isn't 
mentioned. So instead of two similar graphics of a woman being the 
object, they obviously need one with a man being the object.   The 
"snowballing" article, something else new to  me similarly showed two 
women doing it, even though overwhelmingly it is gay men and 
heterosexual couples doing it. All that just shows quite a bit of sexist 
and even homophobic POV.

Anyway, more females and gay males (another under-represented here?)  
willing to deal with these POVs would help. Plus two suggestions below.

Also, admin wise, maybe Sexual Content needs its own ANI do it doesn't 
freak out all the people who don't want to hear about it.


On 2/17/2011 1:15 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
> 	It's absolutely possible to deal with this by simply following the
> principle of "least surprise".
>
> 	In this specific case, the problem could easily have been avoided by:
>
> 	a) Moving "Bukkake" to "Bukkake (Sexual Act)"
> 	b) Making the "Bukkake" page a disambiguation page with a pointer to
> "Udon" and one to the sexual activity.
--- On *Thu, 17/2/11, Ryan Kaldari /<rkaldari at wikimedia.org>/*wrote:
Yep, try 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners

So do we all agree that the Principle of Least Astonishment needs to be 
encoded into some kind of policy or guideline? In other words, images 
with a sexual context should only appear in articles/categories that 
also have a sexual context. Otherwise, Wikipedia naturally tends towards 
an editorial policy dictated by 20-year-old single white males who see 
no problem with keeping pictures of naked women in every corner of 
Wikipedia and Commons.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110217/65cdde5e/attachment.htm