3 ms·

David wasn’t made with the intent to be pornographic. Lena’s picture was. Being unaware of the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There’s plenty of evidence

by dahart 3y ago

David wasn’t made with the intent to be pornographic. Lena’s picture was. Being unaware of the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There’s plenty of evidence of the mild bias inherent in the use of Lena, if you actually want to find the evidence. Lots of women have mentioned their mild discomfort with seeing it in a professional setting. There’s a documentary about this story called “Losing Lena”.

cubefox 3y ago
When someone experiences "mild discomfort" when seeing David (it does display an idealized nude man, which could also be said about the Lena photo, which is far too artistic to be merely called "pornography") then this is still no reason to banish the David photo. If everything gets banned that someone could potentially be mildly offended by, then we would have to ban a hell of a lot of images in research and academia. Another commenter made a comparison to Christian puritanism. A devout Christian might be offended both by Lena and by David. Or think of a devout Muslim woman being deeply offended by the sight of da Vinci's Vitruvian Man.
- westurner 3y ago
  A nonsecular humanist could take issue with religious imagery, whether the model was fairly paid, and the articles. All NN (Non-Nude) references are suspect. "A Utah school district has removed the Bible from some schools' shelves" (2023) https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-ch... Persons from Utah, are even there good examples of healthy very-heteronormative marriages in the aforementioned now unmentionable text?
- dahart 3y ago
  You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn made with the intent to be sexual and titillating, and art made without any such sexualized intent, then we’re having an unproductive conversation. BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech. In this case nobody banned anything, the movement is nothing more than a request by a broad group of people who care about cultural bias and understand how hard it is to undo, to stop using a specific pinup image for research because of what it symbolizes (porn and antiquated/misogynistic social attitudes), and people are completely free to ignore that request and keep using Lena if they want. You can keep trying to relitigate this issue if you want, but the ship sailed a while ago, this is just history now, and I was just trying to explain what happened since your comment somewhat, and @johnnyanmac’s comment both made it clear you guys were unaware of the full story.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    > You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn The Lena image was clearly artistic. If you want to call it, additionally, "soft-core porn", then you would have to do the same with this statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos The article contains some sexual context. And then you have no basis of treating David differently, except if you arbitrarily discriminate against one sex but not the other. > BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech. That's nonsense, you did nothing except defending the arguments about alleged sexism. > In this case nobody banned anything Completely false. There are journals which ban it, see Wikipedia article. Additionally there is now an indirect ban due to the campaign succeeding in creating a strong negative association, which makes using the image so costly that it isn't a live possibility anymore: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percen...
  - redeeman 3y ago
    > In this case nobody banned anything, the movement is nothing more than a request by a broad group of people a group so broad that they then refuse to publish perfectly valid scientific research papers, if you do not comply with what is for sure not a ban, but merely a request from organisations holding institutional power.
rosewater 3y ago
I appreciate all of your comments in this thread. As a female researcher in graphics - there is an awkwardness to that image personally. But, I don’t speak for all women by any means. It’s a small discomfort, nothing earth-shattering. I wouldn’t have made it very far in CS if I couldn’t handle it. But, it adds to the pile of other small discomforts of being a woman in CS/tech. And that pile is large and cumulatively results in a tense experience. I’m more bothered by these responses than anything, bending-over-backwards to justify the necessity of the image. Come on, guys. Switching the image is a gesture, and a nice one. It’s not that hard to be considerate to your female colleagues. But, in many cases - most even, you don’t have to be if you don’t want to.
- dahart 3y ago
  Thank you! I’m trying but smh yeah this level of argument never ceases to surprise me. We need more women in tech, and we need to figure out how to collectively want to be considerate. Good luck in your graphics research & career! I really mean that because mine is full of luck, and I might not have made it if I’d had a non-stop stream of small discomforts. Graphics is super fun though.

by dahart 3y ago

cubefox 3y ago

When someone experiences "mild discomfort" when seeing David (it does display an idealized nude man, which could also be said about the Lena photo, which is far too artistic to be merely called "pornography") then this is still no reason to banish the David photo. If everything gets banned that someone could potentially be mildly offended by, then we would have to ban a hell of a lot of images in research and academia. Another commenter made a comparison to Christian puritanism. A devout Christian might be offended both by Lena and by David. Or think of a devout Muslim woman being deeply offended by the sight of da Vinci's Vitruvian Man.

westurner 3y ago
A nonsecular humanist could take issue with religious imagery, whether the model was fairly paid, and the articles. All NN (Non-Nude) references are suspect. "A Utah school district has removed the Bible from some schools' shelves" (2023) https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-ch... Persons from Utah, are even there good examples of healthy very-heteronormative marriages in the aforementioned now unmentionable text?
dahart 3y ago
You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn made with the intent to be sexual and titillating, and art made without any such sexualized intent, then we’re having an unproductive conversation. BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech. In this case nobody banned anything, the movement is nothing more than a request by a broad group of people who care about cultural bias and understand how hard it is to undo, to stop using a specific pinup image for research because of what it symbolizes (porn and antiquated/misogynistic social attitudes), and people are completely free to ignore that request and keep using Lena if they want. You can keep trying to relitigate this issue if you want, but the ship sailed a while ago, this is just history now, and I was just trying to explain what happened since your comment somewhat, and @johnnyanmac’s comment both made it clear you guys were unaware of the full story.
- cubefox 3y ago
  > You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn The Lena image was clearly artistic. If you want to call it, additionally, "soft-core porn", then you would have to do the same with this statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos The article contains some sexual context. And then you have no basis of treating David differently, except if you arbitrarily discriminate against one sex but not the other. > BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech. That's nonsense, you did nothing except defending the arguments about alleged sexism. > In this case nobody banned anything Completely false. There are journals which ban it, see Wikipedia article. Additionally there is now an indirect ban due to the campaign succeeding in creating a strong negative association, which makes using the image so costly that it isn't a live possibility anymore: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percen...
- redeeman 3y ago
  > In this case nobody banned anything, the movement is nothing more than a request by a broad group of people a group so broad that they then refuse to publish perfectly valid scientific research papers, if you do not comply with what is for sure not a ban, but merely a request from organisations holding institutional power.

rosewater 3y ago

I appreciate all of your comments in this thread. As a female researcher in graphics - there is an awkwardness to that image personally. But, I don’t speak for all women by any means. It’s a small discomfort, nothing earth-shattering. I wouldn’t have made it very far in CS if I couldn’t handle it. But, it adds to the pile of other small discomforts of being a woman in CS/tech. And that pile is large and cumulatively results in a tense experience. I’m more bothered by these responses than anything, bending-over-backwards to justify the necessity of the image. Come on, guys. Switching the image is a gesture, and a nice one. It’s not that hard to be considerate to your female colleagues. But, in many cases - most even, you don’t have to be if you don’t want to.

dahart 3y ago
Thank you! I’m trying but smh yeah this level of argument never ceases to surprise me. We need more women in tech, and we need to figure out how to collectively want to be considerate. Good luck in your graphics research & career! I really mean that because mine is full of luck, and I might not have made it if I’d had a non-stop stream of small discomforts. Graphics is super fun though.