On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 21:08 +0000, James Mckernon 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). In this case the comparison does hit the nail right on the head. Do we all see the same picture? The picture here does show an averaged girlie, not in street wear, but averaged disco Lolita outfit and pose. For some people male or female it is erotic, but it's not blatant erotic, it's very soft and absolutely no porn. I've seen colouring books for girls at a Catholic German elementary school showing models that look similar. This was around a year ago, when I worked at this school. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
