4 ms·

What is unprofessional about a playboy shoot? Who are you to tell a woman what she can or can’t wear in a profesional environment? Obviously whoever picked it

by _3u10 3y ago

What is unprofessional about a playboy shoot? Who are you to tell a woman what she can or can’t wear in a profesional environment? Obviously whoever picked it was a forward thinking person who wanted women to know they would be able to work in the nascent field of digital imaging. Would you have an issue if it was a picture of Michaelangelos David?

mort96 3y ago
Pornographic images are generally considered unprofessional in settings outside of the sex work industry. It's wild that this even has to be spelled out but here we are.
- _3u10 3y ago
  It’s not pornographic. There’s not even nudity in it. Is David a pornographic statue too?
  - shlubbert 3y ago
    It's referencing an image created with pornographic intent. This is not that difficult, come on.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      Modern relativists feign ignorance regarding the cost of what was almost universally regarded as societally harmful. It’s literally regressive behavior making decisions purely on the basest chemical responses and emotion and not higher order thinking, reasoning or logic. And then somehow bundling that up and claiming to be enlightened.
  - mort96 3y ago
    I don't know who David is. But in case it helps: not all nudity is pornographic, and not all non-nudity is non-pornographic.
  - copperx 3y ago
    It is a nude, pornographic image that has been cropped. Cropping doesn't change the original intent.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I think its debatable whether the cropped image is pornagraphic. The original situation when the image was scanned was certainly inapropriate. But i think its a jump to describe the cropped version as pornagraphic. Whether something is pornagraphic depends on context. Cropped and removed from the original context i fail to see how it is still porn. It seems like the argument is because its origin is porn, everything associated with it is porn. This seems like a very dangerous argument and a very slippery slope.
- johnea 3y ago
  The photo is not pornographic...
  - mort96 3y ago
    The photo is here: https://womenlovetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/distressed-lena-image-1-scaled.jpg https://womenlovetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/distres... Make up your own god damn mind, but it's pretty clearly pornographic to me.
roughly 3y ago
This is what I mean by our field is 12 years old. You know all the answers to those questions, you’ve heard them all told to you in earnest by people desperately trying to get you to understand them, and yet you’re still sitting here arguing in favor of this image because it doesn’t directly affect you (except in the loss of talent available to the field, but people have a hard time mourning things they never knew they had) and it’s fun to argue.
- eska 3y ago
  On one hand we‘re not supposed to be prude and judge/shame women who make a career out of onlyfans and prostitution, on the other a picture of a woman‘s head with a hat on, consenting to the usage of said picture, is regressive and exclusionary. Maybe it’s your ideology that needs to figure itself out.
  - mort96 3y ago
    On the one hand we're not supposed to shame people for their career choices, but on the other hand we're not supposed to create an atmosphere which makes scientific fields feel like "boy's clubs" by e.g using pictures from porn shoots in journals Oh my how can we ever tackle this level of nuance
    - eska 3y ago
      What‘s boy‘s club about a woman deciding to sell pictures for an erotic, not even some hardcore porn, magazine? That would imply she was forced into it by men, rather than using her privilege of being born beautiful to make a ton of money
      - mort96 3y ago
        Are you playing dumb? Nothing wrong with a woman deciding to sell pictures for an erotic pictures, I've been pretty clear about that. The "boy's club" part is the part where the (almost exclusively male) researchers then take the erotic image of a woman from a porn shoot and decide to make it the standard test image for the whole field
constantcrying 3y ago
>What is unprofessional about a playboy shoot? I think it is pretty obvious why using pornographic images in scientific papers for no legitimate reason is unprofessionell. >Would you have an issue if it was a picture of Michelangelos David? It isn't a pornographic image, but depending on the photo it might be appropriate or not. It is also an awful test image for color images.

by _3u10 3y ago

mort96 3y ago

Pornographic images are generally considered unprofessional in settings outside of the sex work industry. It's wild that this even has to be spelled out but here we are.

_3u10 3y ago
It’s not pornographic. There’s not even nudity in it. Is David a pornographic statue too?
- shlubbert 3y ago
  It's referencing an image created with pornographic intent. This is not that difficult, come on.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    Modern relativists feign ignorance regarding the cost of what was almost universally regarded as societally harmful. It’s literally regressive behavior making decisions purely on the basest chemical responses and emotion and not higher order thinking, reasoning or logic. And then somehow bundling that up and claiming to be enlightened.
- mort96 3y ago
  I don't know who David is. But in case it helps: not all nudity is pornographic, and not all non-nudity is non-pornographic.
- copperx 3y ago
  It is a nude, pornographic image that has been cropped. Cropping doesn't change the original intent.
bawolff 3y ago
I think its debatable whether the cropped image is pornagraphic. The original situation when the image was scanned was certainly inapropriate. But i think its a jump to describe the cropped version as pornagraphic. Whether something is pornagraphic depends on context. Cropped and removed from the original context i fail to see how it is still porn. It seems like the argument is because its origin is porn, everything associated with it is porn. This seems like a very dangerous argument and a very slippery slope.
johnea 3y ago
The photo is not pornographic...
- mort96 3y ago
  The photo is here: https://womenlovetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/distressed-lena-image-1-scaled.jpg https://womenlovetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/distres... Make up your own god damn mind, but it's pretty clearly pornographic to me.

roughly 3y ago

This is what I mean by our field is 12 years old. You know all the answers to those questions, you’ve heard them all told to you in earnest by people desperately trying to get you to understand them, and yet you’re still sitting here arguing in favor of this image because it doesn’t directly affect you (except in the loss of talent available to the field, but people have a hard time mourning things they never knew they had) and it’s fun to argue.

eska 3y ago
On one hand we‘re not supposed to be prude and judge/shame women who make a career out of onlyfans and prostitution, on the other a picture of a woman‘s head with a hat on, consenting to the usage of said picture, is regressive and exclusionary. Maybe it’s your ideology that needs to figure itself out.
- mort96 3y ago
  On the one hand we're not supposed to shame people for their career choices, but on the other hand we're not supposed to create an atmosphere which makes scientific fields feel like "boy's clubs" by e.g using pictures from porn shoots in journals Oh my how can we ever tackle this level of nuance
  - eska 3y ago
    What‘s boy‘s club about a woman deciding to sell pictures for an erotic, not even some hardcore porn, magazine? That would imply she was forced into it by men, rather than using her privilege of being born beautiful to make a ton of money
    - mort96 3y ago
      Are you playing dumb? Nothing wrong with a woman deciding to sell pictures for an erotic pictures, I've been pretty clear about that. The "boy's club" part is the part where the (almost exclusively male) researchers then take the erotic image of a woman from a porn shoot and decide to make it the standard test image for the whole field

constantcrying 3y ago

>What is unprofessional about a playboy shoot? I think it is pretty obvious why using pornographic images in scientific papers for no legitimate reason is unprofessionell. >Would you have an issue if it was a picture of Michelangelos David? It isn't a pornographic image, but depending on the photo it might be appropriate or not. It is also an awful test image for color images.