On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Cat wrote:
> Actually, no, I don't believe that they are doing it for shock value or to
> get a rise out of me. If that were the case, it would bespeak an
> understanding that those types of images CAN be construed as having shock
> value or that there is some reason they would get a rise out of anyone.
> That would be a good understanding. The thing I don't like is the
> UN-thinking nature of the postings.
*whew!*
> I understand from your posts that you have a pro-porn perspective, which
> is certainly a fine position to take. However, I feel a distinctly
> unfriendly atmosphere if I walk into a place that has girlie pictures all
> over the walls. I do not think that most places (unless clearly
> demarcated) that are inviting to both males and females generally have
> adult pictures plastered up.
As someone earlier pointed out, the images that people are complaining
about are not "adult" images. Adult images implies nudity, and possibly
sexual act portrayal. Mostly just the suggestion of sexual acts. The
images we frequently see on theme screenshots are of movie stars, models
and comic book characters. Most of them I have easily identified as coming
from supermarket magazines and mainstream comics. They are sexy, yes, but
not quite what classifies as adult.
The difference between walking into a room with Adult images on the walls,
and images of actors/models is WAY different in my eyes. Still, the former
would feel inviting to me, for both sexes. I guess I will chalk that up to
the number of gay/bi friends I have. Its never occurred to me that the
images themselves represented an unwelcome atmosphere. Its always been the
people who put the images up, and their attitude towards other people that
tells me I'm not wanted :)
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+* http://www.ganzir.org/siozie/ *+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
)\._.,--....,'``. Full Riot Pussycat
/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Pussy Wrangler Extraordinaire
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
