[Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

[Dan Rosenthal]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com>wrote:

> >
> > Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
> >
> >
> No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> "educational and high quality."
>
You're saying that a picture of a stripper with her legs wide open can in no
way be educational and high quality? The undertone from this statement is
that "It would be better and less offensive if her legs were closed" which
to me highlights the censorship problem precisely.


>
> My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the pregnancy
> article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
> [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face photo
> of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
> [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening
> it.
> I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
> exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these articles
> at work, take that as you will.
>
This raises twin issues. First, it raises the presumption that you and your
boss's workplace ought to be the model for how people around the world
determine what they should or shouldn't see -- at home OR at work.

Second, it echoes my first paragraph that it makes a judgment call about the
appropriateness of a specific image based on the perceived "immoralness" or
"embarassment" of that image.


> "The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this
> anti-sexualized
> environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many are
> pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what
> other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America.  I
> think
> you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing
> supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional
> conservatives."


The above paragraph is one massive "Citations Needed", but that aside, it
misses the point.

"Many are...." carries with it that "some aren't."
"Some don't" implies that "some do."

In criticizing Milos for generalizing the opinions of one population, you
yourself are doing the exact same thing. We don't have that data, and I'm
sure if there WERE any it could be easily picked apart on methodological
issues. The broader lesson is that attempting to generalize a view on
morality to any populace is doomed to inaccuracy and failure.
 -Dan