Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-2.netnews.com!news-out.netnews.com|netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!us4.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=C5_Mfn^?a5DlGci3SDSG>CU5[F2hIijDO7J470dMQQ7KJ4R`5ADBYnBl[<QJ]_ZeiIKOZ<<SlTG=CEB5;Ln\5^AJf@HSLgR[]oH7dKkgDfTEDLiJPUY0^i>7F
X-Complaints-To: support@frugalusenet.com
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:27:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Politicaly correct?
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
References: <nnd$1ceb09f5$22196381@5a8b707a958e0dcc>
 <ptag0j9b295tu6vp7rg535ij2p4o0djdc8@4ax.com>
 <1qr8r9b.4qm3p9am495eN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
 <uu9oa9$15um4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: bitrex <user@example.net>
In-Reply-To: <uu9oa9$15um4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <6608d811$0$1082203$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1711855633 reader.netnews.com 1082203 127.0.0.1:52545
Bytes: 4597

On 3/30/2024 3:15 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 3/30/24 17:37, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 01:04:38 +0100, jim whitby
>>> <mr.spock@spockmnail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is from an rss feed today.
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, the IEEE Computer Society announced to members that, 
>>>> after
>>>> April 1, it would no longer accept papers that include a frequently 
>>>> used
>>>> image of a 1972 Playboy model named Lena Forsén. The so-called "Lenna
>>>> image," (Forsén added an extra "n" to her name in her Playboy 
>>>> appearance
>>>> to aid pronunciation) has been used in image processing research since
>>>> 1973 and has attracted criticism for making some women feel 
>>>> unwelcome in
>>>> the field.
>>>>
>>>> Why? What could possibly be demeaning about a (above the shoulders) 
>>>> female
>>>> photo!
>>>
>>> The full photo is ahh ... fuller.
>>>
>>> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_Fors%C3%A9n>
>>>
>>> And she is famous in image processing.  I doubt that the IEEE can
>>> change that.
>>>
>>> War story:  Maybe ten years ago, my wife and I took my 15-yo nephew to
>>> Sweden, where I had lived and have friends.  We were walking through a
>>> park near Stockholm's City Hall, where the grassy plaza is lined with
>>> many bronze beauties in full glory.  My Swedish friend stopped at one
>>> of the beauties and commented that the model for that particular
>>> statue was the mother of one of his childhood friends.  Nephew was
>>> floored.
>>
>> There is a tendency to forget that beautiful women are just people like
>> the rest of us.  A woman whom I knew as a folk dancer and the mother of
>> two children once said to me: "If you wonder what I look like naked, go
>> and see the statue in xxx Town Hall, I was the model for it.
> 
> There is this attitude, especially in the US and muslim countries,
> that nudity is reprehensible, more so than physical violence. This
> is weird and borderline insane.

Not much to do with "attitudes about nudity."

a) Use of the image in this context violated copyright to begin with

b) She asked people to stop using it

c) It has no unique value as a test case for image processing in the 
21st century, was used for (dumb) historical reasons only.

> The problem is that if you've been raised in that environment,
> it's almost impossible to change.
> 
> Jeroen Belleman

I can't say about Muslim countries, but Americans that well-understand 
the concept of "consent" and "bodily autonomy" are fairly rare.

Much more common are citizens that would of course ruthlessly defend 
what they figure is "theirs", but figure anyone who isn't them (women 
and children induced) is fair game to be touched, prodded, poked, 
grabbed, commented on, have their pictures and videos re-posted, and 
lives generally pried into until the end of time.

And tend to find the idea that even if consent is given, that it can be 
unilaterally revoked at some later time particularly galling.

That is to say I think the reason we don't have many nude beaches here 
finally has less to do with some abstract concept of Puritanism (given 
how many habitual adulterers we've had as President that seems 
laughable), and more to do with that the number of men who'd show up 
just to try to grab every boobie in sight, then run home and grab a 
handgun and open fire on everyone there if a woman tried to say "no", is 
large.