On 16 May 2011 16:41, Chris McKenna <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote: > >> On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not >>> pornographic. >> >> A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary >> sexual characteristics is not sexual? >> > Not necessarily. Nudity does not equal sex, the surrounding context is not > sexual, the pose is not inherrently sexual, and the background to the > image is non-sexual, so in this case I'd say there is nothing sexual abou > the image.
All I ever learned about human anatomy I learned from Rob Liefeld? > I don't think that ad hominem attacks are a particuarly good way to win an > argument. Wait you want to censor people calling 14 year olds were juvenile? > Thank you for making another offensive comment. Not my fault if your culture tends to take offence easily. > In answer though, nudity does not equal sex, and sex does not equal > pornography. Nudes posed on a way that accent their breasts on the other hand. > You mean "I think it is sexual, therefore what the artist says is > irrelevant because other artists in the field don't say what I think they > should say."? No I think it's sexual because it is. I don't take the artist statement at face value because well lets face it anything that sells itself as anything short of a strip-joint will argue that it isn't sexual. Heck legally the windmill theater's tableau vivant were ah "classical nudes" and not sexual. > What has this got to do with naturism? As far as I'm aware they are the group with the most widespread acceptance of social nudity. > How is not showing certain images on the main page because some people are > offended by them different to censoring the main page for the protection > of people who are offended by certain images? Offense I can live with. Needlessly sexualising the commons environment no so much. > >> >>> Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though. >> >> It's possible that you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we >> would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual >> basis. >> > > What has my (or anyone else's) sexuality got to do with this discussion? Well if you don't understand how the image is sexual I assumed that you must be asexual which would provide an explantion for your claims. > Other than being entirely independent of any culture you mean. Oh it's not though. To start with you care about laws of man rather than some god or other.. So that's one cultural judgment. Secondly you separate speech from actions which again is another cultural judgment. There is also the position that you need to judge that certain things are offensive which is yet another cultural judgment. -- geni _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
