On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote: > On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna <cmcke...@sucs.org> 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.
> >> Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is >> irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page. > > Your agument was about featured status not main page status. This was in reply to your comment that not everything that is featured should be on the main page. I am simply stating that there is at present no distinction between "media that is featured" and "media that can be shown on the main page". > >> If you wish to make this >> distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the >> objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus >> then images you object to will not appear on the main page. > > Historically we've found allowing some of our more respected and less > juvenile admins to make the call works well. > I don't think that ad hominem attacks are a particuarly good way to win an argument. > >> In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort. > > And which context would that be? I thought we had abolished all the > blind colonies. Thank you for making another offensive comment. In answer though, nudity does not equal sex, and sex does not equal pornography. > >> According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to >> be anything of the sort. > > It's a long standing observation that artists of many types tend to > avoid specifically stating such facts. 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."? > >> The creator is apparently German. I believe that current German culture is >> far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or >> British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex >> than in these two cultures. > > Oh indeed but within the Naturism movement there is such a thing as context > > What has this got to do with naturism? >> I'm not aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is >> not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored. >> If you wish to change this please gain consensus. > > Oh if we want to play that game there is no policy stating applying > discretion to what we feature on the main page makes commons censored. 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? > >> 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? >> I am not the one claiming this image is offensive or inapropriate. I am >> saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the >> laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not >> offensive. > > So? That doesn't make your position culturally neutral. Other than being entirely independent of any culture you mean. ---- Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
