On 13 September 2011 18:23, M. Williamson <node...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys > doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is > supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a > piece of stale bread? Wow.
That's rather the point of putting up these examples for illustration and as a test for any proposal. Where do you draw the line? The mummy in question is a real person, regardless of age, and detailed photographs of their dead body are problematic for a number of reasons, not just their nudity, and we changed the Wikimedia article title with the encouragement of the museum in order to explain how they now comply with the UK's human tissue act. The Warren Cup is one of the most famous erotic objects from the Roman period and the two images of anal intercourse (with who in modern times would be considered a boy) is fully explicit and for this reason used to be locked away in a cupboard in the British Museum as it was considered far too graphic for public consumption (it has recently been displayed at a lower hight making it easier for those in wheelchairs to enjoy and for children to ask about). The "piece of stale bread" has never been interpreted as anything else but an artistic depiction of sexual intercourse, should one introduce "PG" certificate style protection for children (or schools), it would doubtless include this object too. Cheers, Fae _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l