4 ms·

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 desperatel

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
      - eska 3y ago
        "Oh my how can we ever tackle this level of nuance", "But in case it helps" makes it clear you're arguing in bad faith instea dof looking for a discussion. You ask "Are you playing dumb?", but then pretend " I don't know who David is." as if that's possible. It's pushed down high school students' throats. And if you googled it, then surely you'd remember that one time you saw it printed on cheap toilet paper in that hotel in Bangok. When it suits your point it's "Nothing wrong with a woman deciding to sell pictures for an erotic pictures" When it doesn't suit your point it's "from a porn shoot" and "THE standard test image" (instead of one of many)
        mort96 3y ago
        I'm arguing in good faith, I just don't think you are. I know many people called David. I didn't go to American high school, so no, one particular "David" was never pushed down my throat as the one canonical "David". I've also never been to Bangok, wherever that is (did you mean Bangkok? I haven't been there either) I did finally google it though and I guess I've seen a picture of that statue before, didn't know it was called Statue. Cool beans I don't understand what you're trying to say with that last part. There's nothing wrong with a woman selling erotic pictures from a porn shoot. I've been consistent on this from the beginning.
        bawolff 3y ago
        Its literally one of the most important sculptures in western civilization. It is kind of hard to imagine someone being ignorant of it. Sort of like someone saying that they have never heard of Shakespeare.
        mort96 3y ago
        Cool
      - friend_and_foe 3y ago
        I don't think they're playing dumb, I think they genuinely don't get the reasoning. I don't get the reasoning either. Good faith discussion and all that.
    - _3u10 3y ago
      Attractive women who are a vast minority should not be made to feel excluded by the majority. This just goes to further stigmatize women by saying that being attractive and having your picture taken rises to the level of being unethical to publish in a scientific paper. Attractive women’s should be made to feel welcome in all STEM fields and not shamed for their bodies or clothing choices.

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
    - eska 3y ago
      "Oh my how can we ever tackle this level of nuance", "But in case it helps" makes it clear you're arguing in bad faith instea dof looking for a discussion. You ask "Are you playing dumb?", but then pretend " I don't know who David is." as if that's possible. It's pushed down high school students' throats. And if you googled it, then surely you'd remember that one time you saw it printed on cheap toilet paper in that hotel in Bangok. When it suits your point it's "Nothing wrong with a woman deciding to sell pictures for an erotic pictures" When it doesn't suit your point it's "from a porn shoot" and "THE standard test image" (instead of one of many)
      - mort96 3y ago
        I'm arguing in good faith, I just don't think you are. I know many people called David. I didn't go to American high school, so no, one particular "David" was never pushed down my throat as the one canonical "David". I've also never been to Bangok, wherever that is (did you mean Bangkok? I haven't been there either) I did finally google it though and I guess I've seen a picture of that statue before, didn't know it was called Statue. Cool beans I don't understand what you're trying to say with that last part. There's nothing wrong with a woman selling erotic pictures from a porn shoot. I've been consistent on this from the beginning.
        bawolff 3y ago
        Its literally one of the most important sculptures in western civilization. It is kind of hard to imagine someone being ignorant of it. Sort of like someone saying that they have never heard of Shakespeare.
        mort96 3y ago
        Cool
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      I don't think they're playing dumb, I think they genuinely don't get the reasoning. I don't get the reasoning either. Good faith discussion and all that.
  - _3u10 3y ago
    Attractive women who are a vast minority should not be made to feel excluded by the majority. This just goes to further stigmatize women by saying that being attractive and having your picture taken rises to the level of being unethical to publish in a scientific paper. Attractive women’s should be made to feel welcome in all STEM fields and not shamed for their bodies or clothing choices.