Image talk:Missionary Sex Position.png/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Teddy bear in the illustration
What's with the teddy bear? I don't think it helps much and is potentially distracting. --Fastfission 20:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I reverted to a version without the extra objects. They are unnecessary and make the picture look unencyclopedic. --Fastfission 20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I think some people don't like the teddy bear because it might imply pedaphilia related overtones.24.97.252.34 20:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sometimes a teddy bear is just a teddy bear. Most of these pictures have extraneous objects in them, and I don't see why this one should be any different.--Prosfilaes 18:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- This image has a book in it, and people aren't going and creating controversy over that one. Leave the bear! 216.184.14.36 06:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I actually think that it looks better with the teddy bear. It makes it feel that the couple aren't thinking about anything else around them, just each other. -- Lardarse 11:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Agree with Lardarse. Also, the woman is clearly of age. Babajobu 11:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Clearly of age? She looks no more than 30 to me. But the most worrying thing to me is that it looks like her left arm is missing... --Lardarse 00:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Or am I just going mad... 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Her left arm and hand seem to be directly under his right arm and hand. Their palms are touching. It's a very intimate posture. Babajobu 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh yes, I see it now. You can tell I'm still a virgin, can't you... --Lardarse 02:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
The following conversation took place moments ago on my Eggdrop:
<cuervo> more importantly <cuervo> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Missionary_Sex_Position.png <cuervo> WHAT THE FUCK IS THE TEDDY BEAR DOING IN THAT PICTURE <datamorph> god i hate sex and the city <datamorph> so ffucking unbelieveably much
So, it caught me slightly offguard, but datamorph didn't seem to notice too much.
Also, he gave a negative review of Sex and the City. --Jack (Cuervo) 16:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Uhm, apparently so apparently "rev" stands for "revert". Sorry, was confused. Image back to what it was before I showed up. Zyqqh 08:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- ditto^ --Piemanmoo 06:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, accidentally reverted to an earlier version, put it right though. haz (user talk) 16:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why has the teddy bear again been deleted? It absolutely does not suggest that the woman is underage, she is very clearly a grown/young woman who still keeps a teddy bear. It adds a nice color and authenticity to the photo, and suggests they are in her bedroom rather than his. Most importantly, there is no reason to take it out. Babajobu 12:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Perhaps he is a sensitive man who uses the missionary position and has a teddy bear in his bed. 216.184.14.36 06:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
A decision needs to be made about the damn teddy. Babajobu has reverted the image back to the version with the teddy in it. Any thoughts? haz (user talk) 14:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted back because no explanation was given for cropping out the teddy bear. What are the issues here? Babajobu 14:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- *audible blink* I never imagined teddy bears to be so controversial. I, for one, see it as an important thematic element, providing context for the illustration :)
-
- Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Agree 100%. Babajobu 04:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It makes a nice balance in the illustration. I guess some people don't want objects representing innocence attached to sex, but I really like it there better. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep the bear. (Ibaranoff24 01:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC))
Comment: The bear makes it look like childporn and/or Hentai. I laughed when I saw this pic....Deckiller 17:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Poppycock...the woman in the picture is plainly an adult. And if you've ever slept with college-age girls (or are one yourself) you'll know that plenty of them have stuffed animals. Babajobu 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Point. I was just making a silly comment anyway :) Deckiller 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The bear is distracting, artistic though it may be. The point of this encyclopedia, I would hope, is to be efficiently descriptive; is this teddy bear necessary to the understanding of "missionary position"? I could understand such a detail left in a picture, but this is a diagram. There is no need for artistry or what has obviously become a contentious detail. Lose the bear.VitaminE 21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What, you mean missionary sex does not require having a teddy bear around? The image had me confused, I thought it was the very defining element of that position... :(
- Enough people are clearly confused by the teddy bear to warrant it being. This is an encyclopedia, and there is no reason to keep something silly like this around. The fact that there are 20 people on this page asking "what's up with the bear?" is proof enough of it being an unnecessary distraction, in my opinion. --Fastfission 02:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- There's not 20 people on this page asking "what's up with the bear". There's about three or four, and about ten saying that it looks good.--Prosfilaes 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with Prosfilaes. I don't think it's really necessary to go through a consensus-establishing rigmarole with an admin, but there does seem to be a general "who cares, let the bear stay" consensus here. I'm in favor of reverting it back, because I think the wipe is insulting to the original artist. Kasreyn 08:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
it adds a discussion to a completely un-intellectual subject, what exactly would the motivations be for looking this up? adding some quirk to the "illustration" imrpoves the memorability of it.
or something.
leave the bear! Shamrox 03:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
have a sense of humor and keep the bear.--Friendship hurricane 05:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the Free Art License under which this image is registered:
- You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions:
-
- attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found,
- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent).
-
- The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies.
and:
- You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out in article 2.2..." (my emphasis)
To me, this would seem to indicate that if there is any modification, we must provide a link to the original work.
This entire issue is so transparently foolish I have a hard time believing adult Wikipedians are involved. It's a teddy bear. As I've pointed out on Talk:Sexual intercourse, there is nothing about teddy bears that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Lots of adults own them (typically women). To claim that this image has to be doctored out of fear of possible outrage is going way too far and actively pandering to a lowest common denominator of narrowmindedness. Kasreyn 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, someone added a link to the original, so we're good on the license. Kasreyn 08:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
In America, if you can rationalize something negative into something benign, it's okay. Does it matter that hundreds of thousands of citizens have an incident of sexual abuse in their past? No, what matters (to the ruling majority) is that artistic freedom wins.
Nothing is wrong until enough people say it is. Doesn't matter if a minority is right - the ruling majority will always ignore lesser pleas. They say things like, "only 3 or 4 people complained, everyone else likes it." Talk about afraid to stand for something...
Among other lame excuses, "the woman is clearly of age" takes the cupcake. The illustration is so primitive that it couldn't possibly "delimit" her age. The "female" could be a developed 16-year-old girl, or a petite 30-year-old.
Anyone who claims the female in the illustration looks "of age" is rationalizing. Or how about this whopper: "it adds a nice color and authenticity to the photo, and suggests they are in her bedroom rather than his." Authenticity? Of what??
Or how about this whopper: "I, for one, see it as an important thematic element, providing context for the illustration :) " Yeah, great place for a "smiley". It is obvious that some WANT the teddy bear specifically FOR the age ambiguity.
But hey... I'm in the minority so ignore me, right? It's such a big deal to you, at least the majority of you, that the teddy bear be included in the illustration. In closing, I'd like to highlight one more rationalization. One more whopper:
"the woman in the picture is plainly an adult. And if you've ever slept with college- age girls (or are one yourself) you'll know that plenty of them have stuffed animals."
She is not PLAINLY an adult. The length of her limbs is NOT proof of adulthood. The thickness of her thighs is NOT proof of adulthood. The length of her hair is NOT proof of her adulthood. Seriously, Babajobu - who are you trying to "kid"?
(1) Plenty of college girls have stuffed animals in their bedrooms. (2) Illustration A, depicting a female having sex, includes a teddy bear. (3) Illustration A depicts a college girl having sex.
Isn't that line of reasoning PLAINLY a fallacy? In fact, all of the justifications presented for the inclusion of the teddy bear are nothing more than "phallusies". "Who cares" isn't a valid line of reasoning, either. (Majorities love apathy too.)
There are other who I haven't mentioned by username - please don't feel ignored. Your comments are just as juvenile as Babajobu's. It's all more evidence the USA is going into the gutter and sooner rather than later.
But hey, delude yourself. Use your imagination to fix the female's age at over 18. Pretend she's "of age" instead of assuming that such a determination is impossible based on the illustration. And pretend that a teddy bear suggests adulthood. Do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.186.47.170 (talk • contribs) .
- What does this have to do with the USA? It's an international website. She's clearly too old to be of the sterotypical age to haev a teddy bear. Whether or not the teddy bear is there makes no difference to the "age" of the people in the picture, nor does it really affect anyone who has been sexually abused. If we're going to be hyperpicky, I may point out that your statement about sexual abuse is incrediably offensive to the people who were abused as adults or senior citizens, by implying they're irrelevant or don't exist.--Prosfilaes 22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- The reason none of the physical proportions of the figure portrayed are, as you say, "proof of adulthood", is because it's a freaking line drawing. No one is pretending a teddy bear "suggests adulthood". We are saying it is unreasonable to assume that a teddy bear must necessarily suggest childhood.
- And speaking of "big deals", the image originally had the teddy bear in it. It was not added by Wikipedians. The "big deal" began when people decided to attempt to remove it for no good reason. If such people want the "big deal" to end, all they need to do is quit messing with the image.
- Unless you have something better to say than to deride and mock other editors, I would advise you not to comment further here. Refer to WP:CIVIL and have a wonderful day. Kasreyn 01:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I literally laughed out loud when I saw that stupid bear. Delete it. --Descendall 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I still think the teddy bear makes it fell like "Its a kids stuff", like just another game a child play. And its not! I mean, if you still have teddy bear in your bad, and you'r willing to have sex... there's something wrong for me. Sure still keep some of my toys, but not in my bad WHILE having sex with some one else... --R2cyberpunk 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The teddy bear is not necessary to this encyclopedic diagram of a sexual position. Many people have asserted that it gives an unsettling feel of pedophilia to the scene, which detracts from what the image is intended to portray - sex between adults. I have reverted it to a version without the bear. Joie de Vivre 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- User "Whoop whoop" changed the illustration to include the teddy bear, with no explanation. As this user has not appeared in this discussion, I have restored the illustration to the version without the bear, pending their explanation for the change. Joie de Vivre 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
