Geek Feminism Wiki

Nudity and sexualness

This image is presumably considered sexist because it has women in the picture, however in reality this should probably be removed from the 'Sexist Incidents' list and moved to something like 'Inappropriate Incidents'.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.131.75 (talkcontribs)

If it’s considered sexist because (next to a man!) there are nude women, the definition of sexism used here is completely detached from any reason. Also it’s not inappropriate in any way. this page should be deleted, it’s nothing but silly. – 188.105.208.49 18:09, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
That list is not referred to as "timeline of sexist incidents" on this wiki, although it may well be elsewhere.
I've updated the article with the feminist issues with them. The nudity one is arguable (in that not everyone interprets it as a sexual image and in some cultures perhaps most people or no one wil), but check the Sex is beautiful page also. Thayvian (talk) 19:28, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
this is no example of “sex is beautiful”. “sex is beautiful” is in effect if
  1. the image/speech is sexual, which is objectively not the case: those people are not showing themselves or others off in a sexual way. they are simply nude, which has no sexual implication. interpreting this as sexual images is sign of coming from a oppressive culture that interprets nudity as sexual (e.g. one of those that makes women wear burkas in order to stop them from “tempting” men)
  2. women are sexually objectified: those images feature both men and women in equally sexual poses (i.e. nonsexual), noone is interacting with others in a way that implies dominance.
as a result, i’ll remove this page as an example from the “sex is beatutiful” page until a reason is given on that page’s talk page why those images are a) objectively sexual and b) objectify women. also is it ok to delete this page? i thought it was obvious why i put the deletion template on it, and i’m sure i’ve convinced you now :) – 188.174.112.139 16:49, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this should be phrased, but I would also maybe add something about the differential cultural norms about male and female upper-body nudity (in Western culture at least), where a male model with a bare chest is considered non-sexual or less-sexual than a woman similarly bared. This, in combination with the gender disparity among Linux users, feeds into the sexualised environment thing. --Skud (talk) 13:09, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
What does "objectively sexual" mean? Is there such a thing? It's true that they don't portray an actual sex act as understood in Western culture. It's true that some people do not interpret them (or any nudity without a sex act) as sexual at all.
However some did/do. There were/are at least four camps::::# finding the images sexual, disliking that
  1. (this) nudity is not sexual to me, what's all the fuss about
  2. (this) nutidy is not sexual to me, but I can see why other people find it so and/or I wish to be sensitive to other people's personal or cultural or legal restrictions on viewing nudity
  3. (this) nudity is sexual to me and I don't like that
  4. (this) nudity is sexual to me and that is AWESOMECAKES SEXIFY LINUX JUST LIKE THIS
Camp #4 is where this is an example of the sex is beautiful defense. Not everyone is in Camp #4, probably including every one of the participants in this conversation. But it existed.
The article could stand to discuss this in more detail, but I think it can stand up in the Incidents list. Not all of the incidents are intended to be 100% certified awful sexist by everyone everywhere (for one thing, almost every one of them has defenders who say it wasn't actually sexist). It was a big discussion that, among other things, included people who were hopeful that Ubuntu would routinely sexualize their Linux-using experience by default.
Re the cultural coding of bare-chested men and women as raised by Skud. It's notable that the women in this image are (and are required to by at least some Western decency standards) consistently covering their nipples with their arms or turning their chests away from the camera or having a logo strategically placed so that their nipples can't be seen, and the man is not. I'm tempted to track down the rest of them if they can be found now to see if its a pattern; it would almost have to be. Thayvian (talk) 07:00, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of documenting further, and giving people the full set of images to discuss if they like, I've uploaded them all to Ubuntu Warty visual theme/Image archive. I've also added the first background (which was set as the default briefly) to the main page also. Thayvian (talk) 08:35, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

My own thoughts, given these, are that without the October 2004 background image, the login and splashscreen aren't especially remarkable. The October 2004 background image, which appeared with them, appears to be intended to be more evocative of sex at least, with the women's arms obscuring but also drawing attention to their breasts and the man's gaze being in the direction of one of the women's breasts also. Whether it is sexual is of course subjective, but it plays into sexual pose tropes way more than the login or splash screens do. Thayvian (talk) 08:39, January 4, 2013 (UTC)