Well, first off, this isn't a fashion image and isn't utilized as one; it's an image of a mostly nude woman. (Go ahead, try to persuade me that it would qualify as a featured image of a monokini. Yeah, see, not a fashion image.) A number of the FP supports explicitly support because of the (for lack of a better term) "arousability index" of the photo. I don't think it's even a particularly good glamour photo; it's just the best we happen to have, and I'm not sure it would pass FP in 2014. It's nowhere near as good as most of the images in [[Erotic photography]] - and there is currently a discussion to merge [[Glamour photography]] into [[Erotic photography]].
(The paragraph below may be off-topic) Secondly, I'm not convinced that seeking, curating, and featuring images that objectify subjects in a sexual manner is a particularly useful or encyclopedic goal, absent some genuine artistic merit. Most LGBTQ people I know don't parade around in the nearly-nude even at Pride Week events. Many of the people I know who embrace a more fluid sexuality find that media attention on Pride Week (and LGBTQ issues in general) tends to focus very disproportionately on the prurient and exhibitionist, and the excessive focus on highly sexualized imagery promotes the fallacy that those who are "non-straight" are obsessed with sex to a much greater degree than the "average straight". I sense that most participants on this list would consider sexual orientation/gender identification only one important trait of an individual, so perhaps in that sense *we're* atypical. :-) But I have to say that my favourite unquestionably "gay" image on the project is of two men getting married, and it would be a huge coup to have an image like Michael Sam kissing his partner Vito on NFL draft day to illustrate [[Homosexuality in American football]] - and probably half a dozen other articles. Risker/Anne On 14 May 2014 09:56, Lane Rasberry <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I wrote to a company which does male fashion and I might write to more, > asking them to donate media. > > Fashion is controversial but as an industry it has driven world history. > Part of fashion is sexuality and Wikipedia is harmed by suppressing > sexuality and the world is harmed when Wikipedia does this. Fashion is both > what is marketed and how people present themselves in any context. > > Two Wikipedians, Dorothy Howard (user:OR drohowa) and Jason Moore > (user:Another Believer) are coordinating a Wiki Loves Pride event to > commemorate June as LGBT Pride month. Especially if we could present other > photos equally objectifying and celebrating a range of genders and body > types then this kind of picture presentation could become a more positive > experience among a general call for appreciation of sensual beauty in all > its forms, rather than just pop-media marketing ideas. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2014> > > The Wikimedia Commons challenge will also be LGBT-themed for June > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photo_challenge> > so perhaps people can upload sexiness and fun from various gay pride > events around the world in June. Flickr in particular has and will continue > to have lots of LGBT pride pictures from around the world. See also > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_events_by_year> > > I would love to see this controversy turn into a discussion about > acceptance of all kinds of people and praise for healthy expression of > sexuality. > > yours, > > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM, LtPowers > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > So where is the dude cheesecake? :) >> >> >> >> We don't appear to have any that has reached Featured Picture status yet. >> >> >> >> I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't think we should be making value >> judgments on whether or not a particular FP is "worthy" of being featured >> on the Main Page or not; if it's good enough to be FP, it should be good >> enough to be POTD. But the opponents are right that this would turn off a >> lot of editors and potentially cause a firestorm. That makes this seem >> like a case of maintaining our ideals versus being practical about the >> impact, but maybe that's oversimplifying? >> >> >> >> >> >> Powers &8^] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > > -- > Lane Rasberry > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia > 206.801.0814 > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
