Until there is proof or external verification of the results, it’s just another case of Chinese propaganda.

I think that Diamanda Galas - The Litanies of Satan (or any other of her works) will be appropriate.

SilverHawks

The thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn’t fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:

• It does not depict human genital organs in their sexual functions
• It does not solely focus on the technical aspects of sexuality and sexual life, completely detached from the intellectual and personal layers

The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don’t even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.

I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it’s rather an example of “deobjectification” because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.

Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.

This is not porn; it’s an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren’t in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it’s not where you are looking.

I can see the same thing, and I couldn’t agree more. Do you happen to have an article of hers to share?

So, I think the only somewhat valid argument is that Lena herself expressed the wish not to use her photo. The real issue is that ‘scientists were uncomfortable.’ Because if someone feels uncomfortable with the human body, it raises questions about their mental condition. Especially in this particular case, the picture is and has always been cropped, showing no nudity. The original source, ‘Playboy,’ has nothing to do with anything, and even if it did, this is still a very tasteful piece of art. Even if there was a man in this picture, I would say the same. This is just a picture showing a pleasing composition of the surroundings and a human female specimen. So, the question that remains is: Why would anybody feel uneasy seeing a woman in a hat? Those for whom this is a problem must imagine things (that make them uncomfortable) in their heads that are not in the picture. The problem is that our culture, including advertisements, fashion, and social media, distorts the perception of human bodies and how people, especially young ones, perceive their bodies. At the same time, young people often aren’t properly socialized regarding their sexuality and aren’t taught that the body is not subject to morality, and there are no ‘good’ and ‘bad’ body parts. They shouldn’t be reinforced in their erroneous thinking by canceling and censoring parts of reality. I’m not saying that those people are the issue. I’m saying that their behavior is a symptom of the real problem with the society that needs to be addressed.

Right… Let’s eliminate every instance of nudity because religious zealots were offended by it in the past, and now leftist zealots are offended. Let’s remove the statue of David and all other art depicting the naked human body. Later, let’s remove anything from public view that could potentially offend anyone.

Type O Negative

We are living in a funny world, where nudity must be tagged and generally hidden, but there is wide acceptance to show violence.

I was referring to the same words…

No, the sad thing is that he is right. We could coexist with other species, but instead we choose to exploit the natural environment to its limits.

I agree. Additionally, I don’t believe that, without controlled depopulation (restrictive birth control, not killing people), we can achieve climate stability and solve other issues like increasing pollution of the entire environment. I believe that the population should have stopped growing in the 90s (at about 4 billion), of course, this number is a hunch, not knowledge.

We have reached a point far beyond sustainability; we are on artificial life support. Without this support, even getting dressed would be a challenge, given the lack of a natural and clean source of textile materials. Nearly all clothes are made of plastic or contain some plastic additives. As we wash these clothes in our machines, we inadvertently consume plastic particles in our food and drink.

Speaking of machines, the devices produced today have an increasingly shorter lifespan. Simultaneously, the recycling of these devices is problematic, as our waste is often massively exported to third-world countries.

Another concern is the escalating scarcity of drinking water, among various other challenges. The list goes on and on. Anyone expecting the Earth to accommodate an unlimited number of people is plain insane or doesn’t understand the complexity of the issue.

We must act now on all the fields, even those unpopular ones (like population control).

Those who are against population control, please take a look at this initiative: https://populationmatters.org/ and its patrons (like Sir David Attenborough and Jane Goodall).

This thing has this specific kind of smell. EEVblog

Also Louis Rossmann published a video about it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0i0Ho-x7s_U