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 <jmckernon@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
