4 ms·

I miss it too. What I find strange is that almost no conversation is taboo now regarding sex, gender, sexual health, etc. This is certainly progress. At the

I miss it too. What I find strange is that almost no conversation is taboo now regarding sex, gender, sexual health, etc. This is certainly progress. At the same time it seems as if attraction, flirting, and sexuality has all now seemingly become verboten.

prmoustache 2y ago
I don't even understand why people bring the subject of sexuality here. There is nothing remotely sexual in that photo.
- eigenket 2y ago
  Theres pretty much exactly as much that is sexual about the Lenna image. Its still not appropriate in the workplace or in research. For a start using images like this has obvious and widely negative impacts on women entering your field https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold-does-not-belong-in-tj-classrooms/2015/04/24/76e87fa4-e47a-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold...
  - enneff 2y ago
    Yeah except the Lenna image is from a porno magazine, a photograph of a model styled and posed specifically to create an erotic image. How can you not see a difference here?
    - eigenket 2y ago
      I don't find the Lenna image particularly erotic? I guess shes showing her shoulder which might be particularly risqué where you're from? Certainly for me the Jennifer image is at least comparable.
      - enneff 2y ago
        yes, someone smiling over their shoulder front and centre is more erotic to me than someone sitting on the beach with their back to me positioned smaller in the frame.
    - prmoustache 2y ago
      nudity != pornography. Regardless of your personal opinion of it I don't think Playboy print magazine has ever been considered a porn media, at least not in the society it comes from. The main issue with Lena photo is that it: - it is still used everywhere without the consent of the rights owner - it is still used everywhere without the consent AND MORE IMPORTANTLY regardless of the wishes of the ex model Lena Forsén. She has said several times that she wishes she would have been better compensated for the usage it has had. I guess that makes a huge difference with that picture used to promote photoshop once. While the video and picture aren't lost, and are occasionally mentioned against as part of computer history, they aren't widely in use as of today against the wishes of the photographer and the subject.
      - eigenket 2y ago
        The feelings & wishes of the model are the most important, but also important is the impact on people (especially women) in the field, as the links I posted earlier point out, this impact is generally quite negative.
      - enneff 2y ago
        I think your definition of pornography is more narrow than what I understand it to be. Regardless of whether playboy is specially pornography or not, the image was intended to be arousing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
        prmoustache 2y ago
        Regardless, the Lenna picture used in the imaging industry doesn't include anything remotely pornographic because it only includes the top part of the original playboy picture. Tops not covering shoulders have been so common in the last 50 years it didn't occur to me it came from a nude photo until I read about its origin.
- Freak_NL 2y ago
  I would expect a lot of viewers to find a kind of subdued eroticism there, but of the kind which is fine and fairly safe-for-work as long as all involved parties consented and the photo is used in a non-erotic context. For the photographer and the model a photo like this can be sexualized too (but not necessarily). It seems silly to explicitly deny that a young, seemingly attractive topless woman sitting on the beach in nothing but a bikini bottom wouldn't illicit any sexual response in viewer's brains. Our pattern matching primate brains are essentially hard-wired to detect and respond to biologically suitable mates at a glance. A couple of millennia of civilisation doesn't change that. I would say that there is nothing remotely offensive or unsuitable in that photo, if considered by itself, instead.
  - enneff 2y ago
    This is precisely backward. Our primate brains were accustomed to seeing nude females all the time. The mere appearance of nudity was not enough to inspire a sexual response, context plays a huge role. It’s only in recent human history that we have become so titillated by so little (starting with the Victorian era, but the hypersexualisation of nudity is really the product of the puritanical American culture and advertising practices).
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    I don't know. This picture was taken on a beach, where people are used to see topless or barely dressed people. Out of curiosity I and my partner have been to nudist beaches and ... once all are equals it becomes a new normality and all kind of erotism from being nude disappear regardless of the attractiveness of people around you. Same when a woman gets a boob out to feed a baby. No erotic at all unless you are some creep. I believe it is more the behavior, context and baseline than the actual nudity that triggers us. For instance I wouldn't notice some moderately attractive women in very short skirts and crop top in a danceclub because the club would be full of lightly dressed women. However I would if she is the only one dressed like this in the street while most people have regular pants and a jacket and it would probably trigger something inside that wouldn't in another context. Also a male teenager might have a different view on this than most adults.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- DoesntMatter22 2y ago
  Even today you'd get in a lot of trouble for having a photo like this at work in a lot of places. This would be incredibly risque in the past
  - layer8 2y ago
    This wasn’t risqué at all 30-ish years ago.
    - DoesntMatter22 2y ago
      No, in the 80's it probably wouldn't be, but it would be scandalous in the 50's
      - paradox460 2y ago
        Aircrews painted nude pin up models on aircraft in the 40s.
        DoesntMatter22 2y ago
        These were men going off to die, not people bringing pictures of their wives to the office... It's a little different.
eigenket 2y ago
Attraction, flirting, and sexuality are all fine and good things in the right environment (e.g. beach in Bora Bora), imo its a bit weird bringing them into a work environment.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
It's because at one point, the subject of objectification was raised; films and TV shows having a usually female cast member appear only for eye candy. But the other part is changing or tightening morals, in part due to a conservative morality police PrOtEcTiNg ThE cHiLdReN, in part due to cold, hard cash - that is, making a movie PG means more people will watch it. Note that that's not only a US thing; media is multinational, and some countries are stricter when it comes to morality / decency / sexualization. That said, it's not universal. At the same time, people of many age categories watch porn in public. Some people have no shame about these things. It's confusing times where both inclusion and sexualization / objectification exist in parallel.

prmoustache 2y ago

I don't even understand why people bring the subject of sexuality here. There is nothing remotely sexual in that photo.

eigenket 2y ago
Theres pretty much exactly as much that is sexual about the Lenna image. Its still not appropriate in the workplace or in research. For a start using images like this has obvious and widely negative impacts on women entering your field https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold-does-not-belong-in-tj-classrooms/2015/04/24/76e87fa4-e47a-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold...
- enneff 2y ago
  Yeah except the Lenna image is from a porno magazine, a photograph of a model styled and posed specifically to create an erotic image. How can you not see a difference here?
  - eigenket 2y ago
    I don't find the Lenna image particularly erotic? I guess shes showing her shoulder which might be particularly risqué where you're from? Certainly for me the Jennifer image is at least comparable.
    - enneff 2y ago
      yes, someone smiling over their shoulder front and centre is more erotic to me than someone sitting on the beach with their back to me positioned smaller in the frame.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    nudity != pornography. Regardless of your personal opinion of it I don't think Playboy print magazine has ever been considered a porn media, at least not in the society it comes from. The main issue with Lena photo is that it: - it is still used everywhere without the consent of the rights owner - it is still used everywhere without the consent AND MORE IMPORTANTLY regardless of the wishes of the ex model Lena Forsén. She has said several times that she wishes she would have been better compensated for the usage it has had. I guess that makes a huge difference with that picture used to promote photoshop once. While the video and picture aren't lost, and are occasionally mentioned against as part of computer history, they aren't widely in use as of today against the wishes of the photographer and the subject.
    - eigenket 2y ago
      The feelings & wishes of the model are the most important, but also important is the impact on people (especially women) in the field, as the links I posted earlier point out, this impact is generally quite negative.
    - enneff 2y ago
      I think your definition of pornography is more narrow than what I understand it to be. Regardless of whether playboy is specially pornography or not, the image was intended to be arousing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
      - prmoustache 2y ago
        Regardless, the Lenna picture used in the imaging industry doesn't include anything remotely pornographic because it only includes the top part of the original playboy picture. Tops not covering shoulders have been so common in the last 50 years it didn't occur to me it came from a nude photo until I read about its origin.
Freak_NL 2y ago
I would expect a lot of viewers to find a kind of subdued eroticism there, but of the kind which is fine and fairly safe-for-work as long as all involved parties consented and the photo is used in a non-erotic context. For the photographer and the model a photo like this can be sexualized too (but not necessarily). It seems silly to explicitly deny that a young, seemingly attractive topless woman sitting on the beach in nothing but a bikini bottom wouldn't illicit any sexual response in viewer's brains. Our pattern matching primate brains are essentially hard-wired to detect and respond to biologically suitable mates at a glance. A couple of millennia of civilisation doesn't change that. I would say that there is nothing remotely offensive or unsuitable in that photo, if considered by itself, instead.
- enneff 2y ago
  This is precisely backward. Our primate brains were accustomed to seeing nude females all the time. The mere appearance of nudity was not enough to inspire a sexual response, context plays a huge role. It’s only in recent human history that we have become so titillated by so little (starting with the Victorian era, but the hypersexualisation of nudity is really the product of the puritanical American culture and advertising practices).
- prmoustache 2y ago
  I don't know. This picture was taken on a beach, where people are used to see topless or barely dressed people. Out of curiosity I and my partner have been to nudist beaches and ... once all are equals it becomes a new normality and all kind of erotism from being nude disappear regardless of the attractiveness of people around you. Same when a woman gets a boob out to feed a baby. No erotic at all unless you are some creep. I believe it is more the behavior, context and baseline than the actual nudity that triggers us. For instance I wouldn't notice some moderately attractive women in very short skirts and crop top in a danceclub because the club would be full of lightly dressed women. However I would if she is the only one dressed like this in the street while most people have regular pants and a jacket and it would probably trigger something inside that wouldn't in another context. Also a male teenager might have a different view on this than most adults.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
DoesntMatter22 2y ago
Even today you'd get in a lot of trouble for having a photo like this at work in a lot of places. This would be incredibly risque in the past
- layer8 2y ago
  This wasn’t risqué at all 30-ish years ago.
  - DoesntMatter22 2y ago
    No, in the 80's it probably wouldn't be, but it would be scandalous in the 50's
    - paradox460 2y ago
      Aircrews painted nude pin up models on aircraft in the 40s.
      - DoesntMatter22 2y ago
        These were men going off to die, not people bringing pictures of their wives to the office... It's a little different.

eigenket 2y ago

Attraction, flirting, and sexuality are all fine and good things in the right environment (e.g. beach in Bora Bora), imo its a bit weird bringing them into a work environment.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

It's because at one point, the subject of objectification was raised; films and TV shows having a usually female cast member appear only for eye candy. But the other part is changing or tightening morals, in part due to a conservative morality police PrOtEcTiNg ThE cHiLdReN, in part due to cold, hard cash - that is, making a movie PG means more people will watch it. Note that that's not only a US thing; media is multinational, and some countries are stricter when it comes to morality / decency / sexualization. That said, it's not universal. At the same time, people of many age categories watch porn in public. Some people have no shame about these things. It's confusing times where both inclusion and sexualization / objectification exist in parallel.