Advertising not sexist. Really. I realize this is a tangent, but if I am going to see cumshot in my email list a few more times, I might as well join in.
Hi all! Heather On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com>wrote: > Is there a perception bias here? > > There are many many fine art nudes of men in existence. And if you look at > the body of work for nude sculpture then many are male - Pope Pius IX > was so enraged by this he even went around sticking fig leaves over all the > cocks in the vatican*, an utter travesty in art. > > If you wander around the Louvre you will see lots of nude men on display. > > Modern advertising? Again perception bias I think - buy any girly mag (and > I've been subjected to many) and they are littered with pictures of > half-dressed blokes. Case in point; the famous image of Beckham in very > small undies. > > One of my friends in advertising likes to say something along the lines of > "well one good thing you can say about this industry; at the very least we > are not sexists". > > Nude people are popular pretty much in general :) > > Tom > > * ahem, that might be construed wrongly :S > > On 2 May 2012 17:55, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> ** >> That's a good point. Even here in San Francisco it's much easier to find >> female nudity in art and advertising than male nudity. I just wish people >> would stick to commenting on the art instead of the woman's body. >> >> Ryan Kaldari >> >> >> >> On 5/2/12 12:40 AM, Caroline Becker wrote: >> >> The problem is, we live in a biased world where you can find much, much >> more female nudity in fine art musem than male nudity. I'm currently >> post-treating and uploading pictures from the Museum of Fine Arts of Rennes >> (France) and the only naked male body is a sculpture of a boy/young >> teenager playing, while they are lot of naked women, both in sculpture and >> paintings. Half-naked men are more often corpses than sexy budies. (If you >> want I can create a gallery with all artworks showing naked or half-naked >> women). >> >> What can I do with that ? Not uploaded pictures of artworks with naked >> women ? Working harder to have awesome pictures of artworks with naked men >> ? >> >> Caroline >> >> >> 2012/5/2 Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> >> >>> It seems strange to talk about "Featured Pictured Candidates" as though >>> it is a process, or talk about "bias" -- from what I could discern when I >>> looked into it last time around, it's basically a system that lets anybody >>> promote their own work, as long as they know how to jump through a couple >>> pretty straightforward hoops and wait a few months. >>> >>> I still think that simply, clearly, *documenting* the process in a >>> practical sense would be a useful first step toward thinking up and >>> building interest in a more refined system. Until somebody puts in the >>> effort to do something like that, we're going to continue to see weird >>> entries on the front page of Commons (and many other projects that use >>> Commons' front page image on their own front page) simply because one >>> person took the initiative to make it happen. >>> >>> Not because the "community" at Commons made a bad decision. The >>> "community" didn't make a decision at all. >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> >>> On May 1, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >>> >>> > Speaking of gender and nudity, it seems the bias towards female nudity >>> at en.wiki's Featured Picture Candidates is still as strong as ever. And >>> check out the quality comments at >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Pearl_and_the_Wave >>> > >>> > After you guys are finished photographing your all-male cumshots, >>> maybe you could find some nice nude male art to nominate at Featured >>> Picture Candidates. Too bad Robert Mapplethorpe is still copyrighted. >>> > >>> > Ryan Kaldari >>> > >>> > On 4/28/12 12:17 AM, Paolo Massa wrote: >>> >> If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other >>> >> language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. >>> >> For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on >>> >> all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image >>> >> http://www.manypedia.com/#|en|Cumshot|es >>> >> and the Japanese a different additional one. >>> >> http://www.manypedia.com/#|en|Cumshot|ja >>> >> >>> >> Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of >>> >> Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is >>> >> the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate >>> >> differences in representations of different language communities. >>> >> For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, >>> >> http://www.manypedia.com/#|en|Underwear|ar >>> >> >>> >> Hope it helps. >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroe<emilymonro...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term >>> is >>> >>> female ejactulation. *shrugs* >>> >>> >>> >>> From, >>> >>> Emily >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DC< >>> carolmoor...@verizon.net> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I could have a go again, Carol.>:) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Andreas >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I >>> meant >>> >>>> re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's >>> male on >>> >>>> male. Go for it! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, >>> I >>> >>>> don't think women do it. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get >>> wet." And >>> >>>> maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think >>> that's >>> >>>> ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms >>> are or if >>> >>>> there are any!! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> CM >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>> >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Gendergap mailing list >>> > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> Pete Forsyth >>> petefors...@gmail.com >>> 503-383-9454 mobile >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing >> listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
