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