QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Tue 20th March 2012, 11:40am)
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Mon 19th March 2012, 7:03pm)
Or indeed, Jimbo's face image super-imposed on the woman... or would that be 'beyond the pale'?
The Snowballing (sexual practice) (T-H-L-K-D)
article used to have an image of two women cum-swapping, even though the text described an act between a man and a woman. When the image was changed, so the man was the receiver, complaints went up, even though it now at least matched the text.
My use of the 'gay' scenario was nothing to do with gay sex, actually, it was to do with violence against men, and how acceptable THAT sort of animation would be. That animation isn't about sex, it's about violence, a non-consensual act. The whole 'Donkey Punch' debacle is underscored by the issue of violence, against women. I was drawing attention to that, because it's getting lost in that whole thing going on over there.
So with this in mind, bearing in mind that Sue Gardner's witterings about women and gender are, rightfully, disdained (she's missed so many of the actual points about the problem of gender in the context of Wikipedia), having her as the woman in that animation vitually legitimises the Donkey Punch! That's the topsy-turvy crazy zany world of Wikipedia sexual politics we live in.