Striptease article is well done Options

[LamontStormstar]

Striptease article is well done

Male stripper is clothed
Female stripper has 2 pix. 1 nude and 1 bikini
Then there is a painting and that is of a topless woman

* mod note: add link - Nathan

[AB]

Striptease article is well done

Male stripper is clothed
Female stripper has 2 pix. 1 nude and 1 bikini
Then there is a painting and that is of a topless woman

* mod note: add link - Nathan

Well done? It objectifies strippers!

[Amarkov]

Good God, man! Don't you know how valuable a public service it is to provide encyclopedia articles like this? Brittanica and all the other established encyclopedias have an anti-pornography bias, so who but Wikipedia is going to illustrate to the innocent masses what a striptease is?

[AB]

Good God, man!

Don't call me a man!


This post has been edited by AB: Fri 7th March 2008, 3:33am

[Amarkov]

I blame the intervening 4 minutes, before which my comment would have been directed to the right person. Stupid 4 minutes.

[AB]

I blame the intervening 4 minutes, before which my comment would have been directed to the right person. Stupid 4 minutes.

Huh? Lamont likes the article.

Whatever. Okay then.

This post has been edited by AB: Fri 7th March 2008, 4:14pm

[thekohser]

Huh? Lamont like the article.

Well, me no like the Tigger:

[guy]

I blame the intervening 4 minutes, before which my comment would have been directed to the right person. Stupid 4 minutes.

What you have to do, for the avoidance of doubt, is quote what you are replying to.

[jorge]

What that article really needs is a picture of David Gerard....

[AB]

.

Huh? Lamont like the article.

Well, me no like the Tigger:

Okay, so I'm dyslexic and my browser's spellcheck
doesn't catch grammar mistakes.

I blame the intervening 4 minutes, before which my comment would have been directed to the right person. Stupid 4 minutes.

What you have to do, for the avoidance of doubt, is quote what you are replying to.

That also makes outline mode work better.


This post has been edited by AB: Fri 7th March 2008, 4:12pm

[LamontStormstar]

No, David Gerard looks like a vampire version of Lucius Malfoy, which I'm sure there's been fanfiction about.

The male in the article while looking excessively stereotypically gay, is clothed.

I must note wikipedia is starting to get it right. In the past they had lots of nude male pics and while some yucky ones still remain. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia They are now shifting toward the "eww no dudes" policy.

[guy]

They are now shifting toward the "eww no dudes" policy.

Yes, they're a little more tasteful now: Fundoshi

[AB]

They are now shifting toward the "eww no dudes" policy.

Yes, they're a little more tasteful now: Fundoshi

What? So it is okay to objectify women
but it isn't okay to objectify men?

[thekohser]

They are now shifting toward the "eww no dudes" policy.

Yes, they're a little more tasteful now: Fundoshi

Another article that's a sea of original research without a single footnote citation.

[Unrepentant Vandal]

What is it with feminazis on this site. It's perfectly ok to objectify both men and women, but the latter tend to be more aesthetically pleasing. Deal with it.

[Somey]

It's perfectly ok to objectify both men and women, but the latter tend to be more aesthetically pleasing. Deal with it.

But is it perfectly OK to objectify one and not the other? And are scantily-clad women more aesthetically pleasing to other women, too?

I wouldn't think so...

Besides, the only reason images of scantily-clad women might be more aesthetically pleasing in general is because the people creating those images always have much bigger budgets. If society took some of the money it spends on making women look sexy in front of cameras, and diverted it to education or health care, people would be so much smarter and healthier you wouldn't even have to ask them to stop worrying about the objectification of women anymore.

Still, I'd prefer it if they diverted the money to me personally, just because I happen to like the idea of having more money than I could possibly know what to do with.

[thekohser]

And are scantily-clad women more aesthetically pleasing to other women, too?

I wouldn't think so...

Somey, I think there's some research out there that would show you may be wrong. I thought there are studies that have determined that the female form is inherently more pleasing to observe, for both men and women, or at least as a net-net sum across men and women together.

I wish I could point to the exact studies, but I think they're out there.

[dtobias]

If society took some of the money it spends on making women look sexy in front of cameras, and diverted it to education or health care, people would be so much smarter and healthier you wouldn't even have to ask them to stop worrying about the objectification of women anymore.

It's a common line of argument, from people on just about all sides of a multiplicity of issues, to claim that "if all the [money / time / effort / resources] spent on [some frivolous thing] were instead spent on [some noble thing], then the world would be a better place." In Wikipedia debates, the "some frivolous thing" is often "editing Pokemon articles" or "intra-wiki political sniping", and the "some noble thing" is "creating and improving articles about Important Topics to Benefit the World". This, however, is ignoring the basic fact that people tend to spend their time and money on things that they enjoy, frivolous or not, and it's simply not "fungible" into whatever others think is more worthwhile for the world in general. Believing that the world's resources ought to be yours to command towards some allegedly noble end is a highly collectivist belief.

[AB]

And are scantily-clad women more aesthetically pleasing to other women, too?

I wouldn't think so...

Somey, I think there's some research out there that would show you may be wrong. I thought there are studies that have determined that the female form is inherently more pleasing to observe, for both men and women, or at least as a net-net sum across men and women together.

I am not interested in dating other women. I am
interested in dating men. Or, to be specific, there
is one man in particular I am interested in dating
at the moment.

If I like a man, it can be pleasing to see muscles.
(If I don't like him, then the muscles can just be
scary.)

However, being (serially) monogamous, I'm not
interested in seeing scantily clad pictures of men
whom I am not dating.

But seriously, suppose a guy I am dating looks at
scantily clad (or completely naked) pictures of
women. How is that supposed to make me feel?
Supposing the women in his pictures are really
skinny. Should I starve myself so I can be that
skinny too? What if they have large breasts?
Should I go and get breast implants? What if
they are engaging in BDSM? Should I either
engage in BDSM in spite of the fact that I am
completely phobic of that sort of thing and would
most likely go nuts, or just break up with him?


This post has been edited by AB: Sat 8th March 2008, 3:51pm

[Moulton]

Real progress is tied to fundamental research — an enterprise that few engage in and even fewer excel at. Real progress in the Wikisphere seems to be hampered by the ambivalent attitude toward research. It's verboten in encyclopedic articles, but commonplace in dishing up dirt on rival editors.