Category talk:Sex drawings by User:Seedfeeder

I love these drawings. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I think they are a useful and aesthetically pleasing contribution. --Christopher Courtley (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me three. Very encyclopedic-looking. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate these drawings. And being the lone voice against the three before me does not invalidate my perspective. On the contrary, I feel I have the superior claim. Why?

1.) My opinion is not based on personal aesthetic taste nor biased by titillation, as MZMcBride's comment and Christopher Courtley's comment of "aesthetically pleasing" might be.

2.) I have a stringent and critical standard of usefulness (which I think strongly aligns with Wikipedia's principles), contrasted to Christopher Courtley's non-elaborated comment of "useful". I ask: Useful in what way? I agree they are useful to people wanting to access titillating images without engaging in the taboo of outright searching for porn. And I agree they are useful for representing (and casually furthering) a specific, narrow worldview which enjoys dominance in America and most of the world through a combined history of violence against, erasure of, and marginalization and maligning of other worldviews--both intentionally and unconsciously, overtly and covertly, and through organized campaigns and random happenstance. (see selected related topics for background information: feminism, white supremacy, colonialism, lynching, Christianity, classism, ableism, domestic violence, homophobia, criminal law) I ask: Useful to whom? Useful to, I think, above all, neophyte heterosexual cisgender white males of low and middle socioeconomic classes in majority-white environments. I think these images are "useful" to them above all because they provide everything that could immediately benefit them regarding initial sexual experiences: 1.) normalization and reinforcement of their own interests: heterosexuality, whiteness, male supremacy, and the objectification of women; 2.) permission by example to fetishize race, subjugate women, and prioritize their own desires in sexual situations; and 3.) a safe source of sexual titillation which doesn't complicate or challenge their pursuit of pleasure.

Note that the normalization of one's own interests, permission to prioritize one's own desires, and a safe source of pleasure are not in and of themselves bad things. Rather, it is the narrowness of the range of people who can achieve these things through these images, the nature of that achievement which precludes or excludes others from also achieving it, and the nature of the benefits which rely on advantaging oneself to others' disadvantage...which become the problem.

3.) I have a stringent and critical standard of what constitutes "encyclopedic" (which, again, I think strongly aligns with Wikipedia's principles). Off the cuff, this means content must be historically or scientifically relevant, unbiased, neutral, descriptive, objective, and universally representative for the subject. Illegitimate Barrister's comment of "encyclopedic-looking" doesn't approach this. (Also note that something can look encyclopedic without actually being encyclopedic.)

In short, the problem with these images is: EVERY SINGLE IMAGE except the two which REQUIRE homosexual male pairings is a representation of exactly what a stereotypical cisgender heterosexual white male would enjoy looking at in a patriarchal society. That is not neutral and does not best represent Wikipedia's principles or the good of humanity as a whole.

I hope we can reach consensus in this vein so that the images can be removed or replaced with better ones in their respective articles. 2600:6C67:447F:F316:84CF:4603:3268:1F07 14:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC) The Asexual One[reply]