Donkey punch, The new face of education Options

[Web Fred]

Why Sue Gardner?

Because she's head of the WMF...

In that case she should be facing the other way in the animation.

[HRIP7]

Or indeed, Jimbo's face image super-imposed on the woman... or would that be 'beyond the pale'?

No, you need Sue Gardner's face on the woman, and then have a debate about whether it's beyond the pale. It might actually be a good metaphor, tbh.

I can picture a number of people who would argue earnestly that it would be a poignant and educational illustration of the Wikimedia Gendergap that could be used in a myriad educational contexts. In fact, the Hot sex barnstar is educational too, because it can educate the public about Commons. So you see? It's all educational.

At any rate, it would be no worse than a homemade Santorum caricature painted with dogshit. They've hosted several of those in Commons, and only just managed to delete them.

[Web Fred]

Or indeed, Jimbo's face image super-imposed on the woman... or would that be 'beyond the pale'?

No, you need Sue Gardner's face on the woman, and then have a debate about whether it's beyond the pale. It might actually be a good metaphor, tbh.

"Calling all vandals..."

I was going to put his ex-girlfriend's (never can remember her name) head on the woman, but couldn't find a suitable image.

[HRIP7]

Or indeed, Jimbo's face image super-imposed on the woman... or would that be 'beyond the pale'?

No, you need Sue Gardner's face on the woman, and then have a debate about whether it's beyond the pale. It might actually be a good metaphor, tbh.

"Calling all vandals..."

I was going to put his ex-girlfriend's (never can remember her name) head on the woman, but couldn't find a suitable image.

Never mind; it's perhaps just as well. Here's a nice video though, made by our contributor It's the Blimp, if I recall correctly.

[Angela Kennedy]

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.

Go figure.

Yes.

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.