4 ms·

My mistake on that claim, I still roll my eyes at people who say it's totally normal and okay. How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that?

My mistake on that claim, I still roll my eyes at people who say it's totally normal and okay. How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that? There's a leering element to it.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that? To be fair, very few other racy pictures of women have been canonicalized like that, either; about the only pictures I can think of are paintings, specifically the Mona Lisa, which is hardly racy, and Boticelli’s Birth of Venus, which I suppose you might look at as racy, though I wouldn’t particularly. There’s a couple other non-picture works of art that are canonicalized in that way, but aren’t themselves pictures – Michaelangelo’s David as mentioned in a sibling comment is a good example. But then, even though the canonicalization makes them into something else, it is usually based on upon perceived artistic importance, the Lenna is a different and arguably sui generis phenomenon.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Racy picture? Wait, what photo are we talking about? Is this still about the one in andrewfromx's article that shows a woman's face and shoulder?
  - EamonnMR 4y ago
    It's cropped from an explicit photograph published in Playboy.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      But the topic of this subthread is the cropped, non-racy image that got circulated. Is there anyone who actually got offended by a picture of a woman’s face and shoulder? Besides maybe people in ultra-religious societies that insist on women’s shoulders being covered?
      - EamonnMR 4y ago
        I think people got offended when they found out the source of the image.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      The original is a nude, but calling it “explicit” is…quite a stretch. [0] [0] a scan of the full centerfold is included in this piece (NSFW, obviously): https://kevinrye.net/index_files/1972_playboy_magazine_the_lenna_edition.php https://kevinrye.net/index_files/1972_playboy_magazine_the_l...
      - EamonnMR 4y ago
        Maybe I should have used NSFW instead of explicit, I just don't like to mix initialisms into my speech.
slackfan 4y ago
The statue of David comes to mind immediately. It's been canonicalized like that for over over 500 years, yet I don't hear anybody saying that it's not ok, or talking about how it projects an unhealthy stereotype of men.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

My mistake on that claim, I still roll my eyes at people who say it's totally normal and okay. How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that? There's a leering element to it.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that? To be fair, very few other racy pictures of women have been canonicalized like that, either; about the only pictures I can think of are paintings, specifically the Mona Lisa, which is hardly racy, and Boticelli’s Birth of Venus, which I suppose you might look at as racy, though I wouldn’t particularly. There’s a couple other non-picture works of art that are canonicalized in that way, but aren’t themselves pictures – Michaelangelo’s David as mentioned in a sibling comment is a good example. But then, even though the canonicalization makes them into something else, it is usually based on upon perceived artistic importance, the Lenna is a different and arguably sui generis phenomenon.

ryandrake 4y ago
Racy picture? Wait, what photo are we talking about? Is this still about the one in andrewfromx's article that shows a woman's face and shoulder?
- EamonnMR 4y ago
  It's cropped from an explicit photograph published in Playboy.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    But the topic of this subthread is the cropped, non-racy image that got circulated. Is there anyone who actually got offended by a picture of a woman’s face and shoulder? Besides maybe people in ultra-religious societies that insist on women’s shoulders being covered?
    - EamonnMR 4y ago
      I think people got offended when they found out the source of the image.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    The original is a nude, but calling it “explicit” is…quite a stretch. [0] [0] a scan of the full centerfold is included in this piece (NSFW, obviously): https://kevinrye.net/index_files/1972_playboy_magazine_the_lenna_edition.php https://kevinrye.net/index_files/1972_playboy_magazine_the_l...
    - EamonnMR 4y ago
      Maybe I should have used NSFW instead of explicit, I just don't like to mix initialisms into my speech.

slackfan 4y ago

The statue of David comes to mind immediately. It's been canonicalized like that for over over 500 years, yet I don't hear anybody saying that it's not ok, or talking about how it projects an unhealthy stereotype of men.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]