-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 02/01/16 07:05, Martin Read wrote: > On 01/01/16 17:47, Ric Moore wrote: >> On 01/01/2016 11:23 AM, pe...@berghold.net wrote: >>> I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship? >> >> I'm not seeing any full frontal nudity. Ric > > An image can feature full frontal nudity without being an exercise > in sexual objectification, and equally can be an exercise in > sexual objectification without featuring full frontal nudity. > > A reasonable person could certainly conclude that quite a few of > the images specifically called out by the original poster in this > thread fall into the latter category. >
I tend to agree. I assumed there was something in Debian's core documents (social contract etc) about this, but couldn't find it. I did find something about how everyone will be willingly accepted, but that could be applied either way ... I'm also aware that the respondents to this thread so far appear to be (apologies if I'm mistaken) male; I'm not sure whether the women of the list have deliberately withheld comment? Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWh4G4AAoJELSi8I/scBaNFpEH/iaNAEEELk6X6dGtuybe3Vyc gHfOuDTcptQv2DuubShbh8RgOwElOjiGL0UllnJpUM0NupiyPzhR/dmwgqgtS1ja jzrp8piedZLRCkhghCGlDTDNkIbZS12AzK4codPZcLxtnqiF2L4AhYzIswNdQtil xzNxa1g4wOgEVRAl9OJrBzqOKGKQOAIkzCP/fWtWt3urxHfQZld18BC3SY/BVKEk LK7xnGDvwu+/A1UN2HylpGsxD1fJnrdIBISxVXEt5oQYh0biaCtLXcD+lB7YX7OS qYQ1cGhtOuIg+kFhCPZCfIptSp01pukB60V7/XD/KEzSLL+AtxsCHFl74ZBEYPw= =vrt4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
