[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[Ray Saintonge]

On 09/30/11 9:41 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
>> I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be
>> educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find
>> "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom,
>> watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's "SEX." Knowing how
>> I
>> was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I
>> wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for
>> some
>> juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia
>> (because
>> we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).
> Now, please inform me, if you would want the kids today or a younger version
> of yourself to learn about "sexual content" from Playboys or Madonna's "SEX"
> (both are pretty antiquated today) or an Encyclopedia? you know where you
> and half the people here edit. It might have a couple of graphic images of
> body parts we all have but it has a other things to like important
> information, text, statistics, some even consider that educational. Now I
> don't know how playboy or Madonna's "SEX" are looked at by feminists, but I
> would always prefer an encyclopedia over it (even with an in your face
> picture of a human anatomical part).
>
So I agree, Madonna may be a little antiquated.  Lady Gaga represents a 
more contemporary picture.  Playboy has given way to far more explicit 
material on porn sites.  Dead tree media like Playboy and Britannica are 
facing similar challenges in their respective audiences.  Encyclopedic 
sex seems a little nerdy, and if you depend entirely on that your sex 
life must be damned boring.  Adolescents will look at these words for a 
giggle, the same reason that they look in a dictionary to see if "fuck" 
is in there. They don't look in the dictionary to find its meaning; they 
already know that.

The sexual revolution is not just about feminism.  That movement has 
helped to propel it forward, but sometimes I think that it has also 
contributed to obscuring the bigger picture... particularly when it 
incorporates winning, a feature of the masculine world, into its 
policies.  Few of us, male or female, do well when it comes to living 
with paradox. The LGBT movement has helped.  It has helped to dispel the 
absolute polarity that has excluded the middle from the gender gap. 
There's a lot of variety in that gap.

Editorial judgement is about sensitivities.  There is a role for penis 
pictures, but once you see too many of them they all become pricks. I'm 
not wise enough to know when that line is crossed. Are any of us?

Sorry, but I have been warned twice that a glass of wine has been poured 
for me. I'll nee to come back to my literary flight at a later time.

Ray