linuxaudio.org

--14dae934038d6ef9cb04d56cdb1e

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
No, it is not silly at all - it is logically very accurate. Having an image

that appeals

to a particular sexuality is the same as having an image that appeals to

asexuality,

which in itself is a type of sexuality.
But the point of this remark was to underline that you can get offended by

anything if you

choose to. Like, start comparing the wallpaper to the color of your skin

and get offended

by that.
--

Louigi Verona

http://www.louigiverona.ru/
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:08 AM, James Mckernon  wrote:
> I think that's a fairly silly comparison. Your example is essentially

quoted text
> neutral: a wallpaper without sexual imagery doesn't cater in

> particular to any group, at least not on gender/sexuality grounds. An

> image with sexual imagery manifestly does cater more to one group than

> others (albeit, in this case, probably only very slightly).

>

> J

>

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Louigi Verona

> wrote:

> > "I think that including an image of a 'hot' female tacitly sends the

> > message that those who are viewing it are likely to be (heterosexual)

> > males, i.e., that this is a 'boy's space'."

> >

> >

> > Using that same logic, NOT including an image that is considered "hot"

> > by one sex or the other must then mean that we are tacitly send the

> > message that those who are viewing are likely to be asexual, that this is

> > "asexual space". And some asexual people might get offended.

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > Linux-audio-user mailing list

> > Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

> > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

> >

>

--14dae934038d6ef9cb04d56cdb1e

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No, it is not silly at all - it is logically very accurate. Having an image=

 that appealsto a particular sexuality is the same as having an image t=

hat appeals to asexuality,which in itself is a type of sexuality.

But the point of this remark was to underline that you can get offended=

 by anything if youchoose to. Like, start comparing the wallpaper to th=

e color of your skin and get offendedby that.--

Louigi Veronahttp://www.louigiv=

erona.ru/

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:08 AM, James M=

ckernon <jmckernon@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that's a fairly silly comparison. Your example is essentially

neutral: a wallpaper without sexual imagery doesn't cater in

particular to any group, at least not on gender/sexuality grounds. An

image with sexual imagery manifestly does cater more to one group than

others (albeit, in this case, probably only very slightly).
J
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> "I think that including an image of a 'hot' female tacitl=

y sends the

quoted text
> message that those who are viewing it are likely to be (heterosexual)<=

br>

quoted text
> males, i.e., that this is a 'boy's space'."

>

>

> Using that same logic, NOT including an image that is considered &quot=

;hot"

quoted text
> by one sex or the other must then mean that we are tacitly send the

> message that those who are viewing are likely to be asexual, that this=

 is

quoted text
> "asexual space". And some asexual people might get offended.=

>

quoted text
> __________________=

_____________________________

quoted text
> Linux-audio-user mailing list

> Linux-audio-u=

ser@lists.linuxaudio.org

quoted text
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

>

--14dae934038d6ef9cb04d56cdb1e--