Openly Anti-porn - reprint of letter

28064212

Ambersky wrote: »

Has Porn done this to images of our own bodies that they can not be seen in any other way than as a reflection of porn or NSFW

Nothing to do with porn, it's simply not a suitable image to have on screen at work

Ickle Magoo

I think that sounds as paranoid as the author of the letter tbh....I don't think it has anything to do with porn - after all, a picture of a flacid penis or close up of hemoroids would also be changed to a link and deemed nsfw - and you don't find many of them in your average porn sketch.

Ambersky

Suggestions of paranoia are neither helpful nor welcome.
But not being paranoid I can understand the post as a knee jerk response to an issue nine mins after the initial post on the matter, without having any time to think about the implications being presented.

28064212

Ambersky wrote: »

Suggestions of paranoia are neither helpful nor welcome.
But not being paranoid I can understand the post as a knee jerk response to an issue nine mins after the initial post on the matter, without having any time to think about the implications being presented.

So you think, after having time to consider the implications, breasts are a suitable thing to have on-screen at work?

Silverfish

I don't think Ambersky is disputing that the pic is NSFW, I think it's more a questioning on how society has got to a point where breasts are considered NSFW moreso than a hand or a foot or a face.

Breasts in themselves are not sexual, no more so than a picture of a baby if you ask me.

28064212

Silverfish wrote: »

I don't think Ambersky is disputing that the pic is NSFW, I think it's more a questioning on how society has got to a point where breasts are considered NSFW moreso than a hand or a foot or a face.

Or a flaccid penis or an anus? Or a man with his top off? I don't think considering any of those NSFW is a bad reflection on society

Silverfish wrote: »

Breasts in themselves are not sexual, no more so than a picture of a baby if you ask me.

I think the vast majority of people would disagree with you, and they have been considered sexual since a long time before mainstream porn

Ickle Magoo

Breasts are definitely sexual - we are one of the few animals who have visible breasts even when not lactating...it's no co-incidence that they are also an erogenous zone.

Silverfish

Well I'm the one who edited it and added the NSFW tag, so clearly I'm not in total disagreement, however they were breasts in a non-sexual context, many people scrolled past the image all day yesterday with no complaint.

Is the Paris Hilton image also not NSFW, as that is in a sexual context?

Ickle Magoo

I missed this, sorry:

Ambersky wrote: »

Suggestions of paranoia are neither helpful nor welcome.
But not being paranoid I can understand the post as a knee jerk response to an issue nine mins after the initial post on the matter, without having any time to think about the implications being presented.

How many minutes does one need to wonder at blame being levelled at a medium that didn't exist when breasts were first being lauded as arousing and/or inappropriate for public viewing?

ETA: Just for the record, I don't think the picture is "inappropriate" for public viewing but it's fairly standard to include a warning on anything that could be construed as inappropriate for those at work/who have boss's looking over their shoulders.

28064212

Silverfish wrote: »

Is the Paris Hilton image also not NSFW, as that is in a sexual context?

The video in post 49? Playing the video would certainly be NSFW. However, a rather blurry, unclear still from it is unlikely to raise too many eyebrows.

If you had a boss standing behind you as you scrolled down the page, which do you think would be more likely to cause a reprimand?

Silverfish

Probably the full body shot of Paris in a bikini, rather than a fully dressed woman posing with some pictures of breasts, to be honest. But then again, I'm more likely to be in trouble for reading boards at work rather than the content portrayed within.

But like I said, I was the one who actually edited the image to a link and added the NSFW tag, only SINCE that has anyone complained here about the image being NSFW!

Dudess

Silverfish wrote: »

I don't think Ambersky is disputing that the pic is NSFW, I think it's more a questioning on how society has got to a point where breasts are considered NSFW moreso than a hand or a foot or a face.

That's what I got from it too. I agree breasts are sexual, but at the same time, images of those of e.g. tribal women aren't censored.

I don't think Ambersky was being paranoid - an unfair suggestion tbh.

pajunior

28064212 wrote: »

The video in post 49? Playing the video would certainly be NSFW. However, a rather blurry, unclear still from it is unlikely to raise too many eyebrows.

If you had a boss standing behind you as you scrolled down the page, which do you think would be more likely to cause a reprimand?

I imagine the fact that we're on boards when we're meant to be working is more of an issue then either image

coffee_cake

Silverfish wrote: »

Probably the full body shot of Paris in a bikini, rather than a fully dressed woman posing with some pictures of breasts, to be honest. But then again, I'm more likely to be in trouble for reading boards at work rather than the content portrayed within.

But like I said, I was the one who actually edited the image to a link and added the NSFW tag, only SINCE that has anyone complained here about the image being NSFW!

Oh i'm not complaining about it, I just make sure to scroll faster/stay away from the thread I know it's in (for anything nsfw). I was more reacting to her thinking it's about porn

ztoical

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Breasts are definitely sexual - we are one of the few animals who have visible breasts even when not lactating...it's no co-incidence that they are also an erogenous zone.

Your face, neck and hands can also be erogenous zones should we keep those covered?

Breasts serve a function in feeding babies and young children. The UK/Ireland and USA have become very squeamish over the idea of breasts, breast feeding, wet nursing etc etc and it's a result of social conditioning not porn.

It's not uncommon in Indigenous populations for women to walk around topless with breasts on show as it's considered normal and acceptable or even nearer home on beaches in Europe for people to go topless without much thought for it. There are a number of movements for 'Topfreedom' to reduce the obession people have with womens breasts by making it more common for people to see them in every day settings.

28064212

Silverfish wrote: »

But like I said, I was the one who actually edited the image to a link and added the NSFW tag, only SINCE that has anyone complained here about the image being NSFW!

Who's complained since? The only complaint I can see is Ambersky saying that it's wrong that breasts are considered NSFW, and linking it to porn changing how people see their bodies

coffee_cake

ztoical wrote: »

Your face, neck and hands can also be erogenous zones should we keep those covered?

Breasts serve a function in feeding babies and young children. The UK/Ireland and USA have become very squeamish over the idea of breasts, breast feeding, wet nursing etc etc and it's a result of social conditioning not porn.

It's not uncommon in Indigenous populations for women to walk around topless with breasts on show as it's considered normal and acceptable or even nearer home on beaches in Europe for people to go topless without much thought for it. There are a number of movements for 'Topfreedom' to reduce the obession people have with womens breasts by making it more common for people to see them in every day settings.

I see shorts in everyday settings, I don't see them in work

Silverfish

28064212 wrote: »

Who's complained since? The only complaint I can see is Ambersky saying that it's wrong that breasts are considered NSFW, and linking it to porn changing how people see their bodies

The complaints and / or comments that it is not a suitable image to have on your screen at work.
Yet the only time this came up on this thread was AFTER Ambersky notified everyone ( more than 24 hours after it had been posted and several hours after it had been edited) that the pic had been changed to a link to the pic and marked NSFW.

coffee_cake

Silverfish wrote: »

The complaints and / or comments that it is not a suitable image to have on your screen at work.
Yet the only time this came up on this thread was AFTER Ambersky notified everyone ( more than 24 hours after it had been posted and several hours after it had been edited) that the pic had been changed to a link to the pic and marked NSFW.

Why would we complain? She brought it up so we continued the conversation...

Ickle Magoo

Silverfish wrote: »

Probably the full body shot of Paris in a bikini, rather than a fully dressed woman posing with some pictures of breasts, to be honest. But then again, I'm more likely to be in trouble for reading boards at work rather than the content portrayed within.

But like I said, I was the one who actually edited the image to a link and added the NSFW tag, only SINCE that has anyone complained here about the image being NSFW!

I don't think anyone here is complaining about the picture being NSFW, are they? The inference seemed to be that it was all porn's fault that employers would object to their employees looking at pictures/photos of breasts (any breasts) while being paid to work...

ztoical wrote: »

Your face, neck and hands can also be erogenous zones should we keep those covered?

Wut? Did I say anything even approaching that? Seriously now.

ztoical wrote: »

Breasts serve a function in feeding babies and young children. The UK/Ireland and USA have become very squeamish over the idea of breasts, breast feeding, wet nursing etc etc and it's a result of social conditioning not porn.

Having breastfed two children I am well aware breasts do serve that function but I don't think it's their primary function. Most animals only have noticeable breasts when lactating - adult women on the other hand usually have visible breasts, sometimes large breasts, without lactating or even when the woman doesn't want or doesn't have children. They are a clear symbol of sex and sexuality 24/7 for a woman's adult life, they feed a child for a fraction of that - if at all.

ztoical wrote: »

It's not uncommon in Indigenous populations for women to walk around topless with breasts on show as it's considered normal and acceptable or even nearer home on beaches in Europe for people to go topless without much thought for it. There are a number of movements for 'Topfreedom' to reduce the obession people have with womens breasts by making it more common for people to see them in every day settings.

I love going topless - if we shared a climate with many of the indigenous populations you speak of, I'm sure it would be more common here and even then, I don't think that areas where topless bathing is common have any less obsession with the female forum.

28064212

Silverfish wrote: »

The complaints and / or comments that it is not a suitable image to have on your screen at work.
Yet the only time this came up on this thread was AFTER Ambersky notified everyone ( more than 24 hours after it had been posted and several hours after it had been edited) that the pic had been changed to a link to the pic and marked NSFW.

When it was posted, there was no claim that it was SFW. The original post didn't contain a declaration that the image should be SFW, it was purely incidental. I don't care whether it is or not, it doesn't affect me in the slightest, and you made an explicit call that it was NSFW. Ambersky then said that it should be SFW (and the fact that it wasn't was somehow linked to porn).

My only dispute is with the last part of the sequence, not any earlier part

Silverfish

Well, I can't go into any more detail without having to argue moderating decisions on thread and take it off topic, but I assure you I did not make the explicit call that it was NSFW, I didn't even notice the image as being considered sexual in nature.

What I wanted to do was clarify Ambersky's point which seemed to have been missed.

28064212

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, I can't go into any more detail without having to argue moderating decisions on thread and take it off topic, but I assure you I did not make the explicit call that it was NSFW, I didn't even notice the image as being considered sexual in nature.

I don't understand what you're saying here. There were no complaints, but you edited the link to be marked NSFW. What else could that mean other than you deciding it was NSFW?

Silverfish wrote: »

What I wanted to do was clarify Ambersky's point which seemed to have been missed.

Ambersky's point was (IMO) that breasts should be considered SFW and that it's linked to porn. I very much dispute both parts of that

Silverfish

No complaints here, I said, here being on this thread, despite the image being up for 24 hours.

28064212

Silverfish wrote: »

No complaints here, I said, here being on this thread, despite the image being up for 24 hours.

Why would there be? Surely reporting it would be the correct thing to do?

Silverfish

28064212 wrote: »

Why would there be? Surely reporting it would be the correct thing to do?

You'd imagine so, yes,

Now, can we please get the thread back on topic?

Like I said

Well, I can't go into any more detail without having to argue moderating decisions on thread and take it off topic

Corsendonk

Surprised the old chestnut of is it "Art or is it Porn?" hasn't cropped up. What does "Lin" define as porn? Suggestive images in the media it seems from her open letter but we are constantly subjected to such images in art or which have influenced adverts so are galleries and museums exploiting women too?

Speaking as a guy, the recent Dolce & Gabbanna TV advert showing actor Mattew McConaughty stripping off his shirt would class as a porn image using Lin criteria IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nfgcTUg7s NSFW

So ladies in your opinion is that porn or an artistic way for D & G to advertise its product?

Ambersky

Maybe I will repeat the question I was asking in the interests of clarity

Im just saying isnt it amazing an image of our bodies, womens breasts, can not be seen as anything other than ......... what .
Is this because of the Porn Industry.
Has Porn done this to images of our own bodies that they can not be seen in any other way than as a reflection of porn or NSFW

I thought it was ironic that here we were discussing porn and here was an innocent image ( as I see it) in a non sexual context, of womens breasts and it has to be censored.
Im not questioning the mods for doing this as I have said, Im observing and questioning.
I do think there is a link between the proliferation of sexual images of womens bodies and the inability for them to be viewed in any other way. Thats all Im saying.
Sheesh!

28064212

Ambersky wrote: »

I thought it was ironic that here we were discussing porn and here was an innocent image ( as I see it) in a non sexual context, of womens breasts and it has to be censored.

Censored for work. I did not find anything sexual about the image. Nonetheless, it is not suitable for work screens

Ambersky wrote: »

Im not questioning the mods for doing this as I have said, Im observing and questioning.
I do think there is a link between the proliferation of sexual images of womens bodies and the inability for them to be viewed in any other way. Thats all Im saying.

It's possible there's a link, but the marking of an image of a woman's breasts as NSFW is most definitely not an example of it

Chucky the tree

Ambersky wrote: »

Maybe I will repeat the question I was asking in the interests of clarity


I thought it was ironic that here we were discussing porn and here was an innocent image ( as I see it) in a non sexual context, of womens breasts and it has to be censored.
Im not questioning the mods for doing this as I have said, Im observing and questioning.
I do think there is a link between the proliferation of sexual images of womens bodies and the inability for them to be viewed in any other way. Thats all Im saying.
Sheesh!

Start emailing a picture of a naked man around your work place and see what re-action you would get. Do you think there is a link between's the proliferation of sexual images of mens bodies and the inability to view them any other way?