6 ms·

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,

by 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.
  - mort96 3y ago
    The reasoning is literally as simple as: there's nothing wrong with being in the porn business, but that doesn't mean porn is appropriate in all contexts. If a woman does porn (or a man for that matter), that's fine. They didn't do anything wrong. If a company CEO decides to display porn in a company-wide meeting, there's probably something inappropriate and unprofessional about that. Where is the contradiction between these things???
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      Well, for one, the image used in the field is not pornographic at all, it's a woman's face. Second, its been used for over 50 years. If this were really about showing porn in the office I think the old guard would've definitely put a stop to it. It's not about showing porn because the image is not porn. Finally, it is used primarily because it is technically fantastic for its use cases.
      - mort96 3y ago
        It's a playboy shoot. She's nude. It's not some hardcore thing, it's obviously not as inappropriate as the "CEO showing porn in a company meeting" example, but it 100% creates a "boy's club" type atmosphere. There's this website I use a lot, called rawpixels.net (seems to be down now?). It's an excellent tool for peeking at raw picture data when I work on debugging video decoding stuff at work. However, the default loaded picture is the Lena picture. It feels inappropriate every time I open the website at work, in our open office space where my screen is visible. Because it clearly looks like a picture that's intended to be erotic/suggestive. And if it feels inappropriate to put up on my large screen at work, it's clearly not appropriate as the standard test image for a whole field.
_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.

by eska 3y ago

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.
- mort96 3y ago
  The reasoning is literally as simple as: there's nothing wrong with being in the porn business, but that doesn't mean porn is appropriate in all contexts. If a woman does porn (or a man for that matter), that's fine. They didn't do anything wrong. If a company CEO decides to display porn in a company-wide meeting, there's probably something inappropriate and unprofessional about that. Where is the contradiction between these things???
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    Well, for one, the image used in the field is not pornographic at all, it's a woman's face. Second, its been used for over 50 years. If this were really about showing porn in the office I think the old guard would've definitely put a stop to it. It's not about showing porn because the image is not porn. Finally, it is used primarily because it is technically fantastic for its use cases.
    - mort96 3y ago
      It's a playboy shoot. She's nude. It's not some hardcore thing, it's obviously not as inappropriate as the "CEO showing porn in a company meeting" example, but it 100% creates a "boy's club" type atmosphere. There's this website I use a lot, called rawpixels.net (seems to be down now?). It's an excellent tool for peeking at raw picture data when I work on debugging video decoding stuff at work. However, the default loaded picture is the Lena picture. It feels inappropriate every time I open the website at work, in our open office space where my screen is visible. Because it clearly looks like a picture that's intended to be erotic/suggestive. And if it feels inappropriate to put up on my large screen at work, it's clearly not appropriate as the standard test image for a whole field.

_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.