Pregnancy, NSFW image Options

[Shalom]

I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately.

But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable.

It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on?

[A Horse With No Name]

For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on?

Speak for yourself, bub!

[dogbiscuit]

I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately.

But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable.

It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on?

...as demonstrated by the couple of pictures lower down with a lady in a bikini.

I would say that the photograph in that context was in good taste and the sort of photograph that you might expect to get in some publications on pregnancy.

Essentially, for me this is a good example of the need for versioning. There are plenty of people who on that photograph going through the work filter would be called into the manager's office to explain why they had broken house IT rules.

With all the usability studies and discussions on school versions of Wikipedia and so on, you would have hoped that someone at WMF would have twigged that such a feature would be a good thing which could make the Wikipedia product more attractive as well as solving readers' problems.

Note to self: must remember that the Wikipedia readership are of no interest to the WMF except at donation time. Silly me.

[Shalom]

I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately.

But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable.

It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on?

...as demonstrated by the couple of pictures lower down with a lady in a bikini.

I would say that the photograph in that context was in good taste and the sort of photograph that you might expect to get in some publications on pregnancy.

Essentially, for me this is a good example of the need for versioning. There are plenty of people who on that photograph going through the work filter would be called into the manager's office to explain why they had broken house IT rules.

With all the usability studies and discussions on school versions of Wikipedia and so on, you would have hoped that someone at WMF would have twigged that such a feature would be a good thing which could make the Wikipedia product more attractive as well as solving readers' problems.

Note to self: must remember that the Wikipedia readership are of no interest to the WMF except at donation time. Silly me.

Look, I'm not saying that a picture of a naked pregnant woman (or even a naked non-pregnant woman) has no educational value. Just use discretion. It really should not appear on the first screen of an article that many people will expect to read without seeing any skin at all. My ideas for images on "pregnancy" would be (1) women with clothes on, and (2) cartoon drawings.

[Milton Roe]

I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately.

But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable.

It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on?

...as demonstrated by the couple of pictures lower down with a lady in a bikini.

I would say that the photograph in that context was in good taste and the sort of photograph that you might expect to get in some publications on pregnancy.

Essentially, for me this is a good example of the need for versioning. There are plenty of people who on that photograph going through the work filter would be called into the manager's office to explain why they had broken house IT rules.

With all the usability studies and discussions on school versions of Wikipedia and so on, you would have hoped that someone at WMF would have twigged that such a feature would be a good thing which could make the Wikipedia product more attractive as well as solving readers' problems.

Note to self: must remember that the Wikipedia readership are of no interest to the WMF except at donation time. Silly me.

Look, I'm not saying that a picture of a naked pregnant woman (or even a naked non-pregnant woman) has no educational value. Just use discretion. It really should not appear on the first screen of an article that many people will expect to read without seeing any skin at all. My ideas for images on "pregnancy" would be (1) women with clothes on, and (2) cartoon drawings.

Can I chime in to say that a grossly pregnant woman in a bikini may be just as shocking as a tastefully-posed naked one, in a shower? It's certainly more unnatural! I was trying to figure out why I preferred the pic this article starts with, to the ones further down, and that's what I came up with, anyway.

[CharlotteWebb]

But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable.

You should schedule a psychiatric evaluation. I think Ottava could use a car-pool buddy.

We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon.

Yep.

Granted, computer policy in the places I've worked has fallen into one of three categories:
A) Use your own discretion but get your work done in a timely fashion.
B) Use the internet only for purposes related to company business.
C) Bring some books because we don't fucking have internet.

(2) cartoon drawings.

Then we'd be arguing about your perceived age of the expectant mother.

[Theanima]

How exactly would cartoon drawings make any difference? They'd still show the same thing, but not as accurately as a photograph.

And besides, I'm tired of all these people who insist breasts are sexual organs. They're for babies for goodness sake. Their sexual connotation is as much the same as, say, feet (which many are turned on by, just like breasts).

If you in your workplace are required to look up terms related to pregnancy, it should be no surprise to the employer that you might come across a naked lady at some point.

[A Horse With No Name]

Look, I'm not saying that a picture of a naked pregnant woman (or even a naked non-pregnant woman) has no educational value.

Look, where do you want today's youth to learn about this kind of stuff? Sooner or later, naked women pop up in people's lives -- let's use Wikipedia to indoctrinate kids, thus having them ready when this happens.

My ideas for images on "pregnancy" would be (1) women with clothes on, and (2) cartoon drawings.

I once saw a poster that parodied the "Peanuts" cartoons - it had a very pregnant Lucy yelling, "Damn you, Charlie Brown!" That would be hilarious for the pregnancy article, eh?

[Milton Roe]

And besides, I'm tired of all these people who insist breasts are sexual organs. They're for babies for goodness sake. Their sexual connotation is as much the same as, say, feet (which many are turned on by, just like breasts).

Well, here we disagree. Breasts in a non-pregnant woman ARE sexual organs. Some women have no more breasts when they aren't nursing than a dog or cat has. But these women are able to provide just as much milk when needed (this has actually been studied). That means that a breast for a woman who is not nursing, or preparing to, is NOT for babies. It's not needed.

So whence all that extra fatty tissue, which clearly isn't functional, occuring in some women with large breasts, who aren't pregnant or nursing? Well, they're secondary sexual characteristics, as, ermm, "advertised."

As is that glorious hair of a woman, which is of better quality usually than a man's. A fact recognized by some Muslim cultures, who require that it be covered up.

These things are mild stimulants, and are soon ignorable if you see them enough, like woman's bare ankles. But I'm pretty sure that nature hardwires some things to be more intrinsically stimulating visually than others. That female figure, for example. All the secondary characteristics that appear at puberty.

[carbuncle]

That's odd, I would have thought that this image would be the natural choice of Wikipedians to illustrate pregnancy...

[everyking]

It's not that the picture is inappropriate, it's just gratuitous. Images should strike the right balance between informative value and cultural acceptability. If you decrease the acceptability of the presentation, you effectively decrease the informative value because you deter some people from reading the article. If an image is shocking, or just even causes you to raise an eyebrow, it probably shouldn't be prominently featured.

[Milton Roe]

That's odd, I would have thought that this image would be the natural choice of Wikipedians to illustrate pregnancy...

Yes. Well, you have your finger on the problem. The bikini swimsuit sends a mild message, as does any bit of clothing which is skimpier than the local cultural circumstances suggest as "neutral." Remember why the bikini was named-- it was supposed to be explosive, and at the time, it was. There was a song that went "She wore an itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini..." But I can't recall any that went "she stepped out of shower nude."

So how exactly are you going to illustrate pregnancy without sending any extra messages that you didn't intend, ala the photo you so helpfully linked above?

[A Horse With No Name]

That's odd, I would have thought that this image would be the natural choice of Wikipedians to illustrate pregnancy...

Horsey likes where this conversation is going!

There was a song that went "She wore an itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini..." But I can't recall any that went "she stepped out of shower nude."

Didn't the Beatles have a song that went, "She came in through the bathroom window, and stepped out of the shower nude"?

[Moulton]

Sheesh, they don't even have any coverage of male pregnancy.

Male Pregnancy

[Milton Roe]

That's odd, I would have thought that this image would be the natural choice of Wikipedians to illustrate pregnancy...

Horsey likes where this conversation is going!

You would. But a pregnant outline sends very mixed signals to men, since the breasts are larger, but the girlish figure is definitely gone. So you'll see a "sexual" response, but not anything like pure lust (which is why you don't see gravid women at strip joints). Instead it tends to sexual-maternal-protective. The emotion we call "galantry" isn't generally thought to be a primary one, but pray tell me, of which other "primary emotions" would it be composed? An extravigantly pregnant woman provokes this feeling in men.

There was a song that went "She wore an itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini..." But I can't recall any that went "she stepped out of shower nude."

Didn't the Beatles have a song that went, "She came in through the bathroom window, and stepped out of the shower nude"?

No, I think the Beatles song is a prophetic homage to G.W. Bush, ala Ann Richards.

They did have one about a guy who crawled off to sleep in the bath, and then later committed arson. That's what you get for teasing John Lennon.

[carbuncle]

It's not that the picture is inappropriate, it's just gratuitous. Images should strike the right balance between informative value and cultural acceptability. If you decrease the acceptability of the presentation, you effectively decrease the informative value because you deter some people from reading the article. If an image is shocking, or just even causes you to raise an eyebrow, it probably shouldn't be prominently featured.

I'm generally opposed to the gratuitous use of nudity on WP, but in this instance I don't find the image gratuitous at all. This image is in context and is not overtly eroticized (although that is really up to the mind of the beholder).

That said, I don't understand why so many people on WP are so vehemently opposed to some kind of tagging system that would enable users to block content (something like a placeholder that says "this image contains nudity - click here to display it" or some such).

[CharlotteWebb]

Male Pregnancy

“Check, Please.”

Actually, I guess you missed the unusual stage directions above the first paragraph:

This article is about pregnancy in female humans. For pregnancy in non-human animals, see Gestation. For pregnancy in males, see Male pregnancy.

[Moulton]

Michigan J. Frog! I love that little guy.

[CharlotteWebb]

That said, I don't understand why so many people on WP are so vehemently opposed to some kind of tagging system that would enable users to block content (something like a placeholder that says "this image contains nudity - click here to display it" or some such).

I think there's a strong assumption that viewers who find boobs offensive will find dozens of other things offensive as well.

In fact it's probably true in most cases.

[Theanima]

If an image is shocking, or just even causes you to raise an eyebrow, it probably shouldn't be prominently featured.

All in the eye of the beholder.