Skip

Nude Removed? December 6, 2008 7:12 AM   Subscribe

Why was this painting's image removed from this question?

Is there some new policy to save everyone from bad art? It seems to me that it would be helpful to see the painting to pick a frame for it... even if it is in bad taste the painting isn't grossly offensive. Really.
posted by geos to Etiquette/Policy at 7:12 AM (146 comments total)

The general rule -- in the FAQ -- is that links that are not necessary to the question get removed so that we don't have to guess why you might be linking to something (spamminess, self-promotion, trying to get a rise out of people). The question didn't require illustration (i.e. it was not about the dimensions of the poster for example), it seemed to be included for the sheer tee-hee factor and was flagged a ton. So, it was removed which to my mind is better than removing the whole question.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:14 AM on December 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


The question can be answered without seeing the picture. It's a question about finding a cheap frame, etc.

The link was to a giant reproduction of it, not a dark room with a bunch of them on the wall.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:15 AM on December 6, 2008


It seemed to me that the poster was asking for advice on what kind of frame ala "Dogs Playing Poker" goes with the painting.

Also, the painting seems totally innocuous to me... I'm really confused why it would offend anyone on the internet in this day and age. Or, was it flagged just because people thought the poster was 'trolling' askme? Didn't seem like that to me...

Oh well, I'm not outraged just kind of confused.
posted by geos at 7:22 AM on December 6, 2008


Since we're no longer in Ask is it now appropriate to ask why on earth anyone in their right mind would give this woman one more second of attention or thought? Truly baffling.
posted by Manhasset at 7:39 AM on December 6, 2008 [8 favorites]


And yeah it's in bad taste. Palin's not my favorite person but she's a national political figure and the governor of a US State and the number of tastless, crass or just out and out offensive (not this image, fwiw) that surfaced as a way of basically saying "we don't like her" during this campaign has been saddening.

It's like how whenever people start talking about Ann Coulter they just have to mention how much they think she looks mannish or how they'd like to kill her in truly horrifying sex-related ways. That's the reality of the internet, sure. However, it doesn't have to be the reality of MeFi where I'd lump those sorts of comments and imagery with people who dislike Obama making Mandingo remarks. It's beyond the pale.

I don't know sharksandwich well enough to know if he was making a political point, trolling, or just geniunely curious and in a sharing mood. However it's clear that the question can be answered without seeing the image and from what I can gather it was originally posted without any NSFW indicators as well which bothered some people who clicked through and were like "wtf?"
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:40 AM on December 6, 2008 [24 favorites]


I don't know. I'm no Palin fan, but I've been bothered by a lot of the same crap that Jessamyn mentions. But seeing the image was useful, I think, because the poster now does have a warning that some people in framing shops may be offended by it, whether they be Palin supporters or conflicted people like me. If he's up to a confrontation, so be it, but maybe buying an appropriately sized frame and doing the work himself would be best.

So the question could have been framed better (sorry). A more detailed verbal description of the poster may have been effective without triggering a lot of flags. And if the image was originally linked without a NSFW, that was dumb. I saw the thread after the NSFW was applied, clicked through, rolled my eyes, and walked away. I didn't see anyone getting all fighty in there, maybe because people are trying to keep to AskMe guidelines, or maybe we're all just about Palined out.
posted by maudlin at 7:56 AM on December 6, 2008


That's not art. It's political porn. And pretty disgusting at that.

I'm genuinely starting to understand why some women claim that beauty is a curse. I've never seen such a sickening display of sexism from the left. Reminds me of a conversation I had with an older woman during the primaries (I voted Obama; she voted Clinton). She was trying to tell me that it was actually easier to vote a black man into office than a woman because the latent sexism still in our culture far outweighs racism. I didn't believe her until Palin joined the ticket and the left went nuts.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:57 AM on December 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


why on earth anyone in their right mind would give this woman one more second of attention or thought?

Because she's going to be on the political scene for a while. Those of you in your late 30s, early 40s will be hearing about her for the rest of their life. Never have I been so envious of youth.

Also, the painting seems totally innocuous to me... I'm really confused why it would offend anyone on the internet in this day and age.

There's a huge back history of objectifying Palin and since Mefi is sensitive to such things (and with good reason), it's not surprising that the link to the picture was deleted. Personally I think the link to the picture should have stayed since you really need to see the picture to recommend a frame. But this is one of those gray areas where mods are attempting to do good in a way that is bound to annoy some people. Whatever steps they take, someone won't happy, so they're probably choosing what's best for the site/community as a whole.

I would just take it as their heart is in the right place, it's not the end of world and if you really want to see the picture, contact the original poster.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:05 AM on December 6, 2008


If you really want to see the picture, it's linked in this question.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:08 AM on December 6, 2008


I think the intention of the asker was close to jessamyn and SeizeTheDay's view of it: it's sort of disgusting sleaziness. And the artist is worse. Weird, weird, weird. Better link to the painting.

His name is Bruce Elliot. His wife owns the Old Town Ale House (embedded audio warning, tho it's nice silly amateur guitar music). He's painted a bunch of different celebrities as wall art at the place, all of them badly. To see them, go to that awful web site of his and click on the "wall art" link. There's embedded audio there, too - an interview with the artist, who's a fucking douche, honestly.

"I picked her because, watching the republican convention, when she appeared I said, 'Wow! She's got that small-town slut look that I find absolutely irresistible. Hence I thought, maybe I should do a naked painting of her."

Here's a Chicago Tribune article about him and his stupid painting.

Oh, and his daughter was the nude body model for the painting.
posted by koeselitz at 8:11 AM on December 6, 2008 [3 favorites]


... and now I feel a little dirty linking to all that, so I'll accompany my links with a plea: please, please, for the love of GOD, do NOT gratify this disgusting opportunism with money or interest. Any shitty painter or dive bar can certainly get famous by putting up a crappy nude painting of somebody who they dislike, but that doesn't damn well make it a classy thing to do. God damn.
posted by koeselitz at 8:16 AM on December 6, 2008


He's a really shitty artist on an aesthetic level, too. Head and body don't match up at all.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:16 AM on December 6, 2008


IANYT, but it is over. You can move on now. Live, and be free. Breathe the fresh air of our fisrt step into the 21st centruy (ha, Bushism!) and grow as you haven't for many years. Be thankful for the resolution of our election, which happened without incident or recount. Open a paper as if you are reliving your first day of true joy in years.

Ditto koeselitz. Go buy some real art from talent. Full frontal joke on the wall? C'mon.
posted by buzzman at 8:23 AM on December 6, 2008


Oh god, in the interview on Old Town Ale House, he says it's one of the greatest paintings in the world. Him and Thomas Kinkade should do a show together.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:24 AM on December 6, 2008


LEAVE THE PAINTER OF LIGHT ALONE!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:28 AM on December 6, 2008 [8 favorites]


®
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:31 AM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


wow, the painter sounds really sleazy...

but the painting still looks like a really crude quasi-classical nude... it doesn't even have a hint of prurience to me. objectifying? maybe that was the painter's intent but he didn't succeed on that level either (IMHO). I don't see how it is disgusting without really reading in a lot of stuff into it. I'll grant that there was a lot of anti-Palin talk on the left which was pure boyzone in the boys putting down girls, but the objectifying was done from the right, was the motivation for her nomination, I think.

still not outraged one way or another...
posted by geos at 8:38 AM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


I was hoping the thing was trying to include commentary on Palin's/the Republicans use of disgusting appearance/sexuality-based political marketing but instead it looks like we have the painting version of shopping celebrity's heads onto nude bodies. Really, even looks like a bad painting of a bad photoshop.

Obama as a ridiculously-muscled, oiled, puffy pirate-shirt-mostly-open bodice ripper cover hero with Columbia swooning in his arms would be the way to go for him.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:47 AM on December 6, 2008


grow as you haven't for many years

I saw someone with a t-shirt the other day that said, "If Obama can become president, surely I can keep my room clean." When I returned home, I immediately cleaned my kitchen, something I'd been avoiding for months.
posted by Manhasset at 8:47 AM on December 6, 2008 [10 favorites]


Yeah, I think I'll keep my Canadian Tire money in my pocket, koeselitz. That guy is a piece of work, and I'm glad I just clicked through to the Chicago Tribune article.

I liked the bearskin rug, though. The painting kind of reminded me of Lawren Harris, if he had been struck repeatedly and soundly in the head, regained consciousness after three months, then started painting badly composited images of his daughter and some strange woman standing on a dead animal in front of some ambiguous white mounds. Which he didn't.

But I think Charlie Pachter should seriously talk to his lawyer about the appropriation of his moose.
posted by maudlin at 8:49 AM on December 6, 2008


She was trying to tell me that it was actually easier to vote a black man into office than a woman because the latent sexism still in our culture far outweighs racism. I didn't believe her until Palin joined the ticket and the left went nuts.

So are you saying you really do believe it is sexism, and not her glaring vapidity and stunning ignorance, that drives the dislike for Palin? Do you believe that if McCain had proposed a male of her disquality, a Quayle character, said man would not have been savaged by the press, pundits, and public?

No, I think eight years of a moron for President had probably primed everyone to seek and destroy blatant ignorance and stupidity, regardless of sex or sexuality.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:56 AM on December 6, 2008 [3 favorites]


I think eight years of a moron for President had probably primed everyone to seek and destroy blatant ignorance and stupidity, regardless of sex or sexuality.

Oh, if only that were so.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:10 AM on December 6, 2008


That's not art. It's political porn. And pretty disgusting at that.

Really? Have you seen much porn? This is pretty tame.

I would lump this is with the various "erotic" fan fiction and art that exist for basically every possible subject. This is just another case of Rule 34 in action, except that a dirty old man is displaying the results in a dive bar rather than on some website.
posted by burnmp3s at 9:20 AM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]




Sarah Palin's candidacy has had the interesting effect of showing misogynistic some supposedly Liberal/Lefty/Progressive folks can be.

A Sarah Palin nude has the (unintended?) consequence of slapping down women everywhere.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:26 AM on December 6, 2008


I think several people make an excellent point in that there is plenty to object to about Sarah Palin in a legitimate, reasoned way without making it about sex.

Also, is it my imagination or does her face look a LOT like Peggy Hill there? My husband is pretty angry with me for pointing this out.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:29 AM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


A classier way to deify is certainly possible. Now be a good American and go shopping.
posted by geekyguy at 9:31 AM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


As a former framer, having the image available for frame choice really does help.

As the crotch-fruit of artists, well, they say the idea of "what is art?" can't be quantified, so if someone wants whatever's been created in their space, it's art. (don't tell them, but I kind of disagree with this and have weird boundaries for what is art and what is not)

As a human being...that dude and how he "created" this kinda grosses me out. (see parentheses above)

As a user, I'm with Brandon Blatcher, not that anyone cares or that it matters.
posted by batmonkey at 9:33 AM on December 6, 2008


In the meanwhile, my girlfriend just purchased a painting of an elephant that was PAINTED BY AN ELEPHANT.

We also own an abstract painting that was done by Cheeta, the chimp who was in the Tarzan movies.

I love art.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:34 AM on December 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


Oh, yeah, there are Palin/Peggy connections all over the place.

That's why Murdoch cancelled KoTH. I just made that up.
posted by box at 9:34 AM on December 6, 2008


It the painting were any better, it would be that much worse.
posted by 31d1 at 9:34 AM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


Mrs. Pterodactyl: My husband is pretty angry with me for pointing this out.

"RAAWRR! We Pterodactyls love that Mike Judge show about ordinary Texans, and are extremely offended that anyone would associate this bad art with it! WE WILL SWOOP DOWN AND DEVOUR BABY TRICERATOPSESES IN REVENGE!"

"Ouch! Underdeveloped horns and frill are sharp!"
posted by koeselitz at 9:36 AM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


Is this why the Alaskan wilds are called the bush?
posted by Frank Grimes at 9:44 AM on December 6, 2008


Is it Peggy Hill? Maybe a good framer in Arlen, TX could help.
posted by fixedgear at 9:50 AM on December 6, 2008


She was trying to tell me that it was actually easier to vote a black man into office than a woman because the latent sexism still in our culture far outweighs racism. I didn't believe her until Palin joined the ticket and the left went nuts.


Yeah, they went nuts because she was a woman. Not because her qualifications consisted of earning a B.A. in Sports Journalism and running am 8000 population burg deeply into debt before becoming governor of one of the least populated states in the union. It had nothing to do with her husband wanting Alaska to be its own nation, or with her complete lack of information about federal governance, even to the extent of not really being sure what a VP does. None of that is why we went nuts. It was because she's female.

The outrage of this campaign is not that the left was aghast at Palin, but that so many on the right thought that she was a reasonable choice.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:58 AM on December 6, 2008 [20 favorites]


Now that I've seen the picture, the two-word review that sharksandwich's user name refers to seems appropriate.
posted by lukemeister at 10:06 AM on December 6, 2008


The question strikes me as a pretty blatant attempt to link to something on AskMe that wouldn't last for three seconds on the Blue. I mean, read the rest of the question -- "dogs playing poker" "them types of frame" "should I have it done in the mall" -- to me this is obvious trolling of AskMe, riffing on Palin's vernacular.

Or, as the kids say: Christ, What an Asshole.
posted by Rumple at 10:07 AM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


The outrage of this campaign is not that the left was aghast at Palin, but that so many on the right thought that she was a reasonable choice.

Actually I don't really care about the fact that people thought she was a poor choice. I thought she was a poor choice. The weird thing to me was that (some) people took this "wow, poor choice" frustration they felt and took it out on her in these skeevy-psychosexualized ways. That's the sexism angle, not that people are crying "foul" over the fact that people strongly dislike her. It's the difference between saying that Ann Coulter is a loudmouthed pain in the ass and saying you think she should be raped to death (a comment I removed from MeFi at one point). I'm sure it's frustrating to many men and women on the left and the right that Palin was chosen and supported for this spot despite her obvious lack of qualifications. How people chose to "take that out on her" is what I find sort of weird and freaky.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:10 AM on December 6, 2008 [30 favorites]


Pater Aletheias: Yeah, they went nuts because she was a woman. Not because her qualifications consisted of earning a B.A. in Sports Journalism and running am 8000 population burg deeply into debt before becoming governor of one of the least populated states in the union. It had nothing to do with her husband wanting Alaska to be its own nation, or with her complete lack of information about federal governance, even to the extent of not really being sure what a VP does. None of that is why we went nuts. It was because she's female.

You of all people should know that this is fallacious: there isn't necessarily one reason why people dislike anyone, and there certainly wasn't in the case of Sarah Palin.

The unfortunate part is that the worst part of our character comes out when we express dislike or hatred. Most people probably didn't hate Sarah Palin because she's a woman; but those very people (I speak from experience) would turn around and call her a "stupid bitch" and make crass comments I'd rather not even describe when expressing their hate toward her. By then, no matter how much they protest that they didn't start hating her because she was a woman but for other reasons, it's beside the point: they clearly think that her femininity has something to do with why they hate her, no matter what they claim.

We all knew those people in grade school who would joke: "he's such a greedy Jew!" and then, when challenged, would retort that they don't think he's greedy because he's a Jew, merely that he's a Jew who happens to be greedy. And it's obvious to anyone who takes a second thought about it that the statement very clearly does imply that greediness and Jewishness are somehow related, or that the person's Jewishness has to do with why a person dislikes them.

I'm no fan of the right, and I voted for Barack Obama, but the more I hear it implied that it's fair to say absolutely anything against a person so long as they're on the other side of the political aisle, the less I can believe that this country has any hope of restoring anything like human decency or respect.
posted by koeselitz at 10:14 AM on December 6, 2008 [3 favorites]


Yeah, they went nuts because she was a woman.

No, they went nuts for all the reasons you mention, and then took her femaleness out on her in the same way they do with Ann Coulter and various other women who dare to be politically unacceptable to the left. That's how sexism works. And yes, there is a depressing amount of sexism on the left.
posted by languagehat at 10:15 AM on December 6, 2008 [8 favorites]


Or what jessamyn and koeselitz said. (I don't preview for religious reasons, OK?)
posted by languagehat at 10:16 AM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


Frank Grimes: Is this why the Alaskan wilds are called the bush?

They aren't, dipshit.
posted by koeselitz at 10:17 AM on December 6, 2008


Okay, they are. But you're still a dipshit.
posted by koeselitz at 10:20 AM on December 6, 2008 [5 favorites]


By then, no matter how much they protest that they didn't start hating her because she was a woman but for other reasons, it's beside the point: they clearly think that her femininity has something to do with why they hate her, no matter what they claim

I think the point is more that feminine females, masculine females, and feminine males can all expect those qualities to be used to attack them, whereas masculine males are free from similar attacks. Masculinity in males is general viewed as a universally positive trait, and that's where the unfairness comes in.

Also, if you're trying to preach about creating an environment of human decency and respect for people that disagree with each other, calling people dipshits might not be the best policy.
posted by burnmp3s at 10:32 AM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


Basically, what happened was, people disliked a painting, and you censored it. The end.
posted by zhivota at 10:47 AM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


That's not art. It's political porn. And pretty disgusting at that.

It's a silly painting. Perhaps not living up to our elevated standards of cultural sophistication, but it is harmless.

It seems that lots of commenters here think he has done something wrong in painting an image that amuses him. Why? It's his painting, his idea, and he's not asking for any of our approval.

Strange how it has stirred up such animosity.
posted by jayder at 10:50 AM on December 6, 2008


However it's clear that the question can be answered without seeing the image and from what I can gather it was originally posted without any NSFW indicators as well

I saw the question right after it was posted, and from the front page, there was no indication of what the picture was in the question. So when I clicked the link and HELLO NAKED LADY, I flagged it so some indication of what the picture was could be added to the question for people who surf Metafilter at work, the library, or in front of their grandmother.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:59 AM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


And I don't understand why anyone believes this poster reflects "sexism."

Perhaps the painter was trying to point out the incongruity between two things:

-- Palin's public identity as a reformer and and the conventionally masculine interests she professed (hunting, bearskin rugs, a rugged Alaskan ethos).

versus

-- The way Palin was "marketed" to the public based on her physical attractiveness and as a symbol of motherhood and ordinary, middle-American femininity (with an untrimmed bush connoting a more unpretentious, ordinary female identity rather than a high-maintenance Brazilian wax or Playboy-style landing strip).

There is no need to assume the painter's intention in creating the poster was sexist. It is your assumption that any nudity in a poster is somehow reflecting of a frat-house snickering mentality, that is sexist.
posted by jayder at 11:00 AM on December 6, 2008


Anyone who surfs Metafilter in front of their grandmother is just asking for trouble.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:00 AM on December 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


There is no need to assume the painter's intention in creating the poster was sexist. It is your assumption that any nudity in a poster is somehow reflecting of a frat-house snickering mentality, that is sexist.

From the original artist:

"I picked her because, watching the republican convention, when she appeared I said, 'Wow! She's got that small-town slut look that I find absolutely irresistible. Hence I thought, maybe I should do a naked painting of her."


If I need to point out the sexism inherent in seeing a woman in a public forum and instantly making derogatory assumptions about her sexuality, and commenting on her appearance exclusively in a sexualized way, you don't need to have this discussion, you need to pick up the most introductory text on sexism you can find and start from the top.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:03 AM on December 6, 2008 [9 favorites]


I've never seen such a sickening display of sexism from the left.

What a leap. Clearly you know something about the poster's politics that we don't.

Anyhow, that McCain picked Palin was about as cynical a display of sexist pandering and tokenism as it gets. And the Republicans underestimated women's intelligence and ability to see through that degrading choice.

Further, after trashing Hillary Clinton as a crypto-dyke for the last sixteen years, elements of the right-wing have no authority to accuse sexism, really.

What an idiot.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:04 AM on December 6, 2008 [6 favorites]


First, yeah, sexism from the left, you're so right. We're just goshdarn awful.

Second, given that frames — even cheap ones — usually need to match the color scheme of the painting in question, a link to the piece of art the OP wanted framed seems not only appropriate but necessary.

I believe that making Metafilter less of a "boyzone" and more of a discussion forum more friendly to and respectful of women is a noble cause. I think removing the link to the picture from the Ask Metafilter question is a step farther down the slippery slope than we should be going.
posted by WCityMike at 11:35 AM on December 6, 2008


Dear Metafilter: what kind of frame would go with this picture of Obama nude riding on a unicorn?
posted by Class Goat at 11:43 AM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


that'd make a cool profile picture.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:45 AM on December 6, 2008


Re: the sexism charge — am I reading things correctly when I interpret them as saying men, and esepecially manly men, aren't subjected to sex-based abuse when they're disliked or hated?

'cause I'm not so sure that's true.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:46 AM on December 6, 2008


Yeah, as others have mentioned, looks like Peggy Hill to me.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:48 AM on December 6, 2008


given that frames — even cheap ones — usually need to match the color scheme of the painting in question

The OP wanted to know where a good place would be to get a risque painting framed for $100 or less. He wasn't looking for specific colors, shapes or sizes. The post was poorly phrased, originally failed to include a NSFW tag or indication of NSFW content, and was made at 1 am on a Friday night. He specifically said "I was thinking something in the lines of them dogs playing poker type of frame" and that was it.

The main issue seemed to be "Hey this is an image that might bug people, what is a good way to do this?" That question was completely answerable without a link to the image. The FAQ is pretty clear about when an image should be included with an AskMe question. We occasionally bend the rules for photos of people's babies, puppies and kitties.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:53 AM on December 6, 2008


The picture did not open the site to any liability. The picture did not contain identifying information about a user. The picture does not appear to be self promotion. Furthermore, there is legit reason to believe that the picture is indeed necessary to answer the question, from people who actually work in framing.


From question: "I was thinking something in the lines of them dogs playing poker type of frame." This statement clearly implies that the questioner is open to advice on what kind of frame to use.

Therefore, I can't conclude anything but the admins having an axe to grind in removing the link to the picture. I usually don't get involved in these kinds of intra-site disputes, but this is the first time I can ever remember this happening here.

It is completely irrelevant if your reasoning is sound for having your axe to grind. Censorship is censorship, and the fact that your values disagreed with the picture is a quite ridiculous and close-minded reason for removing it.

Yes, this is a slippery slope we are on. Thanks for taking the first step down it. If you've got the ability to admit mistakes, you'll put it back.
posted by zhivota at 11:54 AM on December 6, 2008


A Sarah Palin nude has the (unintended?) consequence of slapping down women everywhere.

No, it doesn't.

Basically, what happened was, people disliked a painting, and you censored it. The end.

No, they didn't.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:54 AM on December 6, 2008


fff, men just aren't subjected to sex-themed verbal abuse/belittlement/etc as much when they're disliked or hated. Sure there are cases where they are, but not as much as female public figures.

I'm with Rumple, I think the picture is a lame troll, a stunt post designed to elicit har-har responses.
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:56 AM on December 6, 2008


Therefore, I can't conclude anything but the admins having an axe to grind in removing the link to the picture. I usually don't get involved in these kinds of intra-site disputes, but this is the first time I can ever remember this happening here.

Then why hasn't it been removed from the top of this page?
posted by oneirodynia at 11:56 AM on December 6, 2008


Did it say 'nude' before it was fixed? I mean, I agree that it was probably not needed to link to the picture at all for this question (and TO link to it clearly turns things from "where/how to get a frame" to "Hey look, naked Palin!") but how could one click a "nude Sarah Palin" link and then be upset that it didn't have a NSFW designation?
posted by dirtdirt at 12:00 PM on December 6, 2008


Did it say 'nude' before it was fixed?

Not on the front page, no.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:03 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


jessamynAdmin »» The OP wanted to know where a good place would be to get a risque painting framed for $100 or less. He wasn't looking for specific colors, shapes or sizes. The post was poorly phrased, originally failed to include a NSFW tag or indication of NSFW content, and was made at 1 am on a Friday night. He specifically said "I was thinking something in the lines of them dogs playing poker type of frame" and that was it.

The main issue seemed to be "Hey this is an image that might bug people, what is a good way to do this?" That question was completely answerable without a link to the image. The FAQ is pretty clear about when an image should be included with an AskMe question. We occasionally bend the rules for photos of people's babies, puppies and kitties.


Jessamyn, first of all, there are many Ask Mefis where people correct the OP's sensibility on something, an inherent bias they didn't know they had that affects the problem in the first place. Good example of that is this woman saying "I'm 5'3 and 160 and the guy's going to think I'm fat, so how do I handle that" and half the posters are going "Wait a minute, 5'3 and 160 is fine." In this case, yes, the OP was right in that the picture could offend people, but I can say that now because I actually saw the picture via this MeTa thread. If it had been a pointillist or Dadaesque nude, it's quite possible that the OP might've thought it would offend people whereas people could've said

Second, frames have to match pictures. The poster may not have specifically itemized colors, shapes or sizes, but he was asking for advice on framing, and he provided background information in the form of a link to the photograph. You eliminated that information, so people seeking to give him advice and unaware of this MeTa thread or the picture link within now have no background information by which to form their advice as to the kind of framing he should use for the photograph and where he should get that framing.

As for the lack of NSFW, that could be corrected by editing the question to reflect "(NSFW)", as has been done before. And he does make it clear that it's a female nude, so if someone clicked on a link to a female nude and then said, "Wait a minute, this was NSFW? I am outraged! I will be fired because I clicked on a female nude thinking it would be safe for work!" ... I'd have to question what they expected to see upon clicking the link.

This was a step further down a slippery slope. I'm unsettled. Paving on the road to heck and all that.
posted by WCityMike at 12:04 PM on December 6, 2008


first para of reply: ... whereas people could've said, "No, that's abstract enough it's not going to bother anyone, hell, it's not even recognizable as Palin."
posted by WCityMike at 12:06 PM on December 6, 2008


It's like there's this weird concept of sexism being exclusive to every other form of attack, or something. We're not saying she's NOT vapid, ignorant, and absolutely ridiculous as a "candidate", but we're saying that had it been a "Quayle character", there wouldn't have been a fully produced porn movie made of him within about two weeks of his nomination.

I also, FWIW, still don't believe people who claim that Hillary is only perceived as a bitch because she does bitchy things, and that if Obama were to do those things, he would be labelled with an equally sexually charged epithet. There are many reasons Hillary didn't win the primaries, and there are also many reasons Palin is absolutely despised by the left, but to pretend that gender had nothing to do with it is just being a bit disingenuous.

And yeah, the poster was pretty sleazy.
posted by Phire at 12:08 PM on December 6, 2008 [5 favorites]


Class Goat »» Dear Metafilter: what kind of frame would go with this picture of Obama nude riding on a unicorn?

The darker blue colors around the edges suggest to me that a ow my eyes
posted by WCityMike at 12:08 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


there are also many reasons Palin is absolutely despised by the left, but to pretend that gender had nothing to do with it is just being a bit disingenuous.

absolutely. she wouldn't have even been on the ticket in the first place if she were not a woman.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:15 PM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


Reversing course here. The person who posted the question has what to me appears to be a rather trollish comment history. I still agree with the principle of not deleting the photograph, but moving from the realm of idealism to the realm of pragmatism, after looking at his history of Mefi comments, I can't find fault with Jessamyn's decision to try to neuter a question that, upon reviewing his comment history, has a high probability of being trollbait. You earn trust, and you earn distrust, and this guy's earned his distrust.
posted by WCityMike at 12:18 PM on December 6, 2008


This was a step further down a slippery slope. I'm unsettled. Paving on the road to heck and all that.

A slippery slope to what? Metafilter isn't shutting down your access to that image. It's just not facilitating it from AskMe. Even if every link to that image from here was wiped, you could still find it online. It's not Metafilter's job to insure that you have a direct link to every image on the Internet. No one's First Amendment rights are being violated if a direct link to something isn't supported here. It's still out there, accessible. Let's not wallow in hyperbole just because we have to google for a link to crappy nude paintings of the governor of Alaska.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:18 PM on December 6, 2008 [5 favorites]


zhivota: From question: "I was thinking something in the lines of them dogs playing poker type of frame." This statement clearly implies that the questioner is open to advice on what kind of frame to use.

No, it doesn't.

It clearly implies that the OP already has a type of frame in mind and is (or was, at that moment) incapable of otherwise describing said type of frame. I take it to mean a huge, overly ornate gilt frame, but it could just as easily be a simple black frame with matting.

The OP is asking where to get this indescribable frame job done, not what sort of frame would go best with a nude Peggy Hill.
posted by CKmtl at 12:21 PM on December 6, 2008


oneirodynia »» A slippery slope to what? Metafilter isn't shutting down your access to that image. It's just not facilitating it from AskMe.

Speaking to the principle only, there's a difference between the choice not to provide information and the choice to eliminate existing information.
posted by WCityMike at 12:21 PM on December 6, 2008


Further, after trashing Hillary Clinton as a crypto-dyke for the last sixteen years, elements of the right-wing have no authority to accuse sexism, really.

What an idiot.
posted by Blazecock Pileon


Really, that's what we've come to? No one left to step up and say enough is enough? The left can't rise above and say Palin is an awful choice because of X,Y,Z and leave sexist insults out of it? The Left is going to be just like the Right for payback?

Are we all children? The only thing more disappointing than your attitude is the women favoriting your comment. It's saddening to realize that both sides are filled with hypocrites.
posted by gtr at 12:34 PM on December 6, 2008 [6 favorites]


It's saddening to realize that both sides are filled with hypocrites.

To everyone participating: Please don't use the word "hypocrite", if you don't know what it means. Thanks.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:40 PM on December 6, 2008


And remember: it's always OK to accuse the other side of hypocrisy, but to remain a hypocrite yourself.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:45 PM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


Speaking to the principle only, there's a difference between the choice not to provide information and the choice to eliminate existing information.

Well, if we're going to debate in that fashion, there's also a difference between public and private space, and the rights individuals have (and don't have) in those spaces. There's a difference between wiping every instance of information, and leaving it in places where it's more applicable to the discussion. There's also a difference between supporting someone's supposed First Amendment rights when you think they are an OK Joe, and no longer supporting them once you've determined they're a muffinhead. Lastly, there's a difference between actually logical arguments, and just saying "there's a difference between X and Y".

The point is, MeFi has no obligation whatsoever to provide or maintain links or content of any sort. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I think you should have kept that up because of [whatever]", but removing content is not a slippery slope to, uh, whatever sort of repression people think slippery slopes lead. There's no right to free speech on private sites, so that right can't be taken away.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:15 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Can we move this thread to alt.sarah-n-obama.fanfiction.metatalk.metafilter.com, please?
posted by lukemeister at 1:18 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


After reviewing the posting history of the guy who made the original post, I would like to point out that he is seriously interested in all kinds of art.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:21 PM on December 6, 2008


It seems that lots of commenters here think he has done something wrong in painting an image that amuses him. Why?

Let me guess: you're not female, and you don't have a great deal of interest in how persons who are female tend to view this kind of thing.
posted by languagehat at 1:21 PM on December 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


I would lump this is with the various "erotic" fan fiction.

I thought it was a pretty good example of Outsider/Naive Art myself.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:29 PM on December 6, 2008


Obama as a ridiculously-muscled, oiled, puffy pirate-shirt-mostly-open bodice ripper cover hero

Be careful what you wish for.
posted by EarBucket at 1:29 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Let me guess: you're not female, and you don't have a great deal of interest in how persons who are female tend to view this kind of thing.

I don't see much hyperbolic outrage about klang's photography post. The photographer must be a conservative.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:32 PM on December 6, 2008


I thought it was a pretty good example of Outsider/Naive Art myself.

yes, it would indeed be a welcome addition to the Museum of Bad Art.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:34 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Whenever you wear your librarian glasses down on the end of your nose like this, jessamyn, I am reminded of the animated GIF you posted on MetaFilter of a man sodomizing a chicken carcass. Are your sensibilities so fickle, or were your glasses fogged up at the time?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:46 PM on December 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


I thought AskMe was where we refrained from passing judgment on other people's ugliness. Since the question is vague, the picture is relevant in a few different ways. We can't pretend that because the poster mumbled something about malls he was set on a particular kind of frame. An answer that recommended a cheap frame that really worked with the subject matter would have been a perfect response to the question.

Whenever a controversial AskMe comes up, people search for ways to bring their sanctimony in the back door. I think the most telling response in this thread is the claim that this perfectly chaste nude of Sarah Palin is disgusting porn. That's not true, but it also doesn't matter: AskMe is the place where you don't interfere unless you think you can help your fellow MeFite frame his disgusting porn.
posted by grobstein at 1:48 PM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


I thought it was a pretty good example of Outsider/Naive Art myself.

I agree, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. Some of the fanart on the internet is by trained artists, but a lot of it is done by people with little or no formal instruction. In both cases I think the artist mostly creates the work for his or her self, rather than as a statement to others.

The reason why I think it has more in common with fanart is that fanart tends to be an attempt to realize a fantasy. Judging by the articles linked in this thread, the artist in this case is creating a nude image of Sarah Palin for exactly the same reasons that someone else might create a nude image of a character from a video game or anime series.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:33 PM on December 6, 2008


I think the most telling response in this thread is the claim that this perfectly chaste nude of Sarah Palin is disgusting porn.

I think your convenient omission of the word 'political' as in "That's not art. It's political porn. And pretty disgusting at that." is pretty telling. StD is obviously not comparing it to tentacle rape scat pron or making the claim that it's too raw or prurient, but that the titillation the painting is supposed to arouse in the viewer is ideological. Trying to give the audience a left-leaning boner by humiliating a political opponent, not by using any sort of logic but by objectifying and degrading, them is one of the lower, sleazier forms of propaganda.

You do a disservice to both StD and your own argument by mischaracterizing their statement as being an expression of prudishness. I don't know whether it was intentional because it's easier for you to counter the fake argument or because it was just how you read it, but I've read both a couple times and think you're barking up the wrong tree.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:41 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Damn right, Alvy, and this is disingenuous and/or dumb too:

Whenever you wear your librarian glasses down on the end of your nose like this, jessamyn, I am reminded of the animated GIF you posted on MetaFilter of a man sodomizing a chicken carcass. Are your sensibilities so fickle, or were your glasses fogged up at the time?


The difference between the one thing and the other is not that difficult to grasp, unless you equate women with chicken carcasses. And this is not about prudery, for fuck's sake.
posted by languagehat at 2:50 PM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm going to murder every last one of you while you sleep.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:00 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm going to murder every last one of you while you sleep.

But I haven't gotten your Christmas present yet!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:09 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Heh, I didn't say tonight, silly!
posted by Burhanistan at 3:12 PM on December 6, 2008


Censorship is censorship

...and this was not that thing.
posted by desuetude at 3:15 PM on December 6, 2008


I am reminded of the animated GIF you posted on MetaFilter of a man sodomizing a chicken carcass.

Amusingly, all I did was link to a non-animated image I found during a 30 second Google Images search. Someone else animated it. Someone else posted a link to that [or inlined, it I can't remember] and yet for some reason people always remember (incorrectly) that the girl mod did it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:18 PM on December 6, 2008


That's not the one, jessamyn. It was on the blue. Others will remember it, I am sure.

You know, languagehat, you're so far off base that I'm beginning to think you're not very smart.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 3:23 PM on December 6, 2008


Whenever you wear your librarian glasses down on the end of your nose like this, jessamyn, I am reminded of the animated GIF you posted on MetaFilter of a man sodomizing a chicken carcass. Are your sensibilities so fickle, or were your glasses fogged up at the time?

Um. What the fuck? I don't even know where to begin with this comment, but I'm a bit disappointed, I guess.
posted by Phire at 3:24 PM on December 6, 2008


yet for some reason people always remember (incorrectly) that the girl mod did it.

This is why I blame cortex for everything.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:27 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


StD is obviously not comparing it to tentacle rape scat pron or making the claim that it's too raw or prurient, but that the titillation the painting is supposed to arouse in the viewer is ideological. Trying to give the audience a left-leaning boner by humiliating a political opponent, not by using any sort of logic but by objectifying and degrading, them is one of the lower, sleazier forms of propaganda.

I completely agree that the political aspect of this makes it popular, and that most of the people buying tshirts and prints of it are doing it because they enjoy seeing her in a degrading image rather than for any kind of sexual reason.

But from reading the articles about the guy who drew it, I seriously doubt that this was his intention. I find it much more likely that he did the painting because he was sexually aroused by Sarah Palin. From his previous work, he doesn't seem to have tried to create a stir or make any kind of political statement before, so it would seem strange to me if he suddenly wanted to bring satire into his work.

And besides that, I think the prudishness aspect is fair game, because there are tons of examples of mean-spirited satire or outright political attacks that wouldn't be seen by most people to be as shocking as this relatively innocuous nude portrait of her. A more lewd version would almost certainly be seen as far worse, even though the intentional or unintentional political statement would be the same.
posted by burnmp3s at 3:29 PM on December 6, 2008


cortex is the pony mod
posted by lukemeister at 3:30 PM on December 6, 2008


Whoa, WGP. Do you need a nap or something? Maybe you should go have a snack and come back when you can keep the discussion civil.
posted by Caduceus at 3:32 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


That's not the one, jessamyn. It was on the blue. Others will remember it, I am sure.

What I remember is (a) Jessamyn linking the original dick+chicken gif as cited above and (b) someone later animating the sucker and in-lining it somewhere. I want to say metatalk, but I can't remember for sure and I haven't had time to try and track the thing down.

cortex is the pony mod

cortex is the grumpy-and-thinking-this-is-kind-of-ridiculous mod, mostly. To review:

1. Poster fucks up the title-vs-abovethefold thing in askme
2. in such a way as to cause a blind link to a naked painting of Palin on the front page
3. late at night.
4. People flip out in the thread a little, and flags pile up.
5. Matt cleans out some of the resulting "NSFW WTF" comments and
6. edits the post to at least get "NUDE PALIN" on the front page and
7. doesn't clear out the flag queue thoroughly because, ffs, it's like 1 am.
8. Jessamyn gets up in the morning and see a thread that is flagged to shit and which features an apparently gratuitous link to Naked Palin Painting, which is
9. exactly the sort of ridiculous shit someone pulls around here every once in a while in pursuit of The Lulz, and
10. she edits out the link and leaves a note
11. which does not say OMFG YOU WILL BE BANNED IF YOU EVER POST THIS LINK AGAIN ANYWHERE.

So we've got some bad posting skills on the part of the asker (not a big deal) plus some bad luck (not a big deal) leading to people accidentally chucking up a naked picture without warning from the front page of askme (a big deal, but not really anyone's "fault" per se), followed by a whole bunch of flagging (the system works) and some understandable thread noise (kinda noise, since comments in the thread won't warn front pager clickers, contact form and flagging are more useful here but again no big deal). Then we get some admin cleanup (the system works) from Matt in the middle of the night, a little bit of inter-admin communication breakdown (it happens, see again MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT), and an attempt to clean up what looks like a mess in the morning.

There is no slippery slope here. At worst there was a communication breakdown on our end that lead to a better-safe-than-sorry cleanup of one goddam askme thread. There's no ban on the image, there's no difficulty in finding the image with google in about fifteen seconds time, and it's linked right up there at the top of this thread.

I think discussion of what should and shouldn't fly and when and why re: askme and links in context is fine, but there's some pretty aggro grandstanding bullshit in here and I'm mostly just sorry I didn't make it in here to call it out sooner. Display an ounce of perspective with this censorship/slippery-slope crap.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:49 PM on December 6, 2008 [18 favorites]


That's not the one, jessamyn. It was on the blue. Others will remember it, I am sure.

If you're going to attack someone, don't be lazy about it. Go find the link and post it, if it's so very important to your point.

Frankly, the reasons Matt and Jess gave for deleting the image aren't satisfying but since they're the designated cat herders and almost always do great fucking job, if I thought this decision was so very important, I'd write an note to get it off my chest, wish'em happy holidays and thank them for their work and then move on.

Metafilter has been on all sorts of slippery slopes before and all sorts of of crazy, NSFW and controversial shit still gets posted and stays up. Considering the skeezy nature of the artist and painting and the community flagging of the post (means lots of users were bothered, not just the mods), lets chalk it up to one of those gray areas where the solution isn't perfect and move on to important stuff such as recipes for the BEST tasting pumpkin pie.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:01 PM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


The difference between the one thing and the other is not that difficult to grasp, unless you equate women with chicken carcasses.

That reminds me of the schoolyard joke: why is a suntanned woman like a roast chicken?

The white bits are the best.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:01 PM on December 6, 2008


As for the inline chicken-fucking gif, research suggests it was inlined in the very same metatalk thread, not too long after Jess provided the link to the original.

This link will take you to where the comment would have been if it hadn't been subsequently deleted, something that didn't happen immediately and which I have a vague not-certain-about-this memory of us removing at the request of the person who posted it, who I am certain from context was fandango_matt.

Until some time last year, comments and posts deleted from metatalk were gone for good, so I can establish that comment was deleted only by it's absence from the db. But it's pretty clear reading the thread through that he animated and inlined it there at the time.

Which is not to say it wasn't inlined somewhere else too at some later date. But I think f_m's original prank there was the one folks remember, and the comment's subsequent absence could explain why a contemporary archives-diver would be thrown for a loop by a quick skim of that thread minus careful reading for comprehension.

That plus memories of a plausible (and presumably still-findable) example of the animation being posted elsewhere makes the confusion even more understandable.

Claiming to know better than the person you're accusing of inlining the thing about whether or not the did it still seems pretty fucking bizarre and bull-headed, though.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:05 PM on December 6, 2008


*ducks*
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:08 PM on December 6, 2008


People still make paintings?

Haven't heard about those camera things, huh?
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:13 PM on December 6, 2008


The slopes wouldn't be seem quite so slippery if the alarmists could refrain from smearing their bullshit all over them. It would definitely make for better-smelling slopes, too.

But, since we've gotten things all sorted out, let's break out the skis and have ourselves an old-fashioned scheisse schuss!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:15 PM on December 6, 2008


*gegen Alvy Grossesheissewerfengemachen*
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:22 PM on December 6, 2008


My bonus-round search for a possible chicken gif inlining came up with nothing, but it wasn't a perfect search. Consolation prize: Hulk Hogan, Al Queda Operative.

Anybody who wants to really do their homework should go do a search for "gif" and check all of the results between May 15, 2006 (when the chickendicking started) and October 22, 2006 (when the IMG tag was disable), paying attention only to those results that include the (keyword in HTML) tag at the end. An inline gif would have to have been posted in that interval.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:23 PM on December 6, 2008


Metafilter: A possible chicken gif inlining came up with nothing
posted by lukemeister at 4:30 PM on December 6, 2008


Who wants egg nog?
posted by Bookhouse at 4:32 PM on December 6, 2008


the Brown Snowman.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:33 PM on December 6, 2008


Good Lord, the election's over. We won, and yet we still can't stop talking about this woman apparently. As a wise man once said, the war's over, get new parts for your head.
posted by jonmc at 4:51 PM on December 6, 2008


The "inline chicken-fucking" was actually perpetrated by puke & cry.
posted by An Infinity Of Monkeys at 4:57 PM on December 6, 2008


As a wise man once said, the war's over, get new parts for your head.

Thornton Melon, hey? never heard of him, but i'm definitely yoinking this one for everyday use:

"Yeah, if that dress had pockets, you'd look like a pool table"
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:02 PM on December 6, 2008


You know, languagehat, you're so far off base that I'm beginning to think you're not very smart.

i wuz smrter befor but then my mouse dyed an the docter sed i wud dy too after i got not so smrt and now i'm sad :(
posted by languagehat at 5:04 PM on December 6, 2008 [6 favorites]


He also accurately described Robert Downey Jr as "the poster child for birth control."
posted by jonmc at 5:04 PM on December 6, 2008


*YOINK*
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:18 PM on December 6, 2008


Some folk'll never loose a toe but then again some folk'll.
posted by Sailormom at 5:30 PM on December 6, 2008


right, enough sitting around the house. i'm off to the pub to practice deploying some of these quality lines, plus a few others i've been incubating.

i'll also see if the dykes will prepare a Great Horned Owl for me. wish me luck. i hope they don't substitute wombat scat for owl.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:33 PM on December 6, 2008


Be careful what you wish for.

I like how his junk is exploding in a cascade of roses.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:35 PM on December 6, 2008


I think your convenient omission of the word 'political' as in "That's not art. It's political porn. And pretty disgusting at that." is pretty telling.

Alvy, I genuinely don't understand what you think I'm missing. Are you suggesting that the inclusion of "political" means the commenter didn't view the image as disgusting porn, because "political porn" is different from "porn" generically? I understand that there's a parenthetical argument about political porn (etc.) in this thread, that says (roughly) that political porn is a very ugly response to even bad female politicians because it seems to punish them for being uppity, by objectifying them. You see, I am not so blind.

Similarly, a popular argument says that all porn is wrong for roughly the same reason (sometimes the punishment of uppitiness is left out, but not always -- for example, the surge in porn today is sometimes seen as a kind of vindictive or frustrated response to progress in women's liberation). These are both fine reasons to think that porn or political porn are ugly. Whether either or both are examples of prudishness is I think an open question. My point, however, was not just about prudishness (which is why I did not use that word), but about the whole range of negative judgments you might want to subject an AskMe poster to. My point is that in AskMe you check your judgments at the door, process the information relevant to the question, and answer in a way that will be helpful to the poster based on the best interpretation of what the poster wants to do. It doesn't matter that you and others think the judgment against "political porn" is on stronger ground than the judgment against porn generally (which you call "prudishness"). When we're thinking about what's appropriate for AskMe, this kind of judgment simply doesn't enter the picture. It's not chatfilter. It's not illegal. The picture would have helped generate useful answers. So it should have stayed.

This is why comments like languagehat's (e.g.) are so besides the point. "It's sexist," along with "it's wrong" and "it makes me uncomfortable" are not principles that we use to filter AskMe.

Jess, Matt, and Cortex kind of want to dodge this whole issue by saying that the image wasn't necessary to answer the question, and the question was framed poorly by the poster. That's all technically true, but not very convincing. The image wasn't absolutely necessary to answer the question, but it was potentially helpful. Absolute necessity has not been the standard for deciding what belongs in an AskMe question. Now the link's gone, and maybe someone who could have given useful advice about framing it won't see it. I know it's not the end of the world (the other main argument in its defense), but it was still a mistake.

This was a poorly framed and poorly formatted question. But that shouldn't be an invitation to put its sexual politics in shape.
posted by grobstein at 5:38 PM on December 6, 2008


Nude Removed? I remember that show from my childhood, but I think it was called the Nude Zoo Removed.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:53 PM on December 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


If we can't sexually humiliate and degrade people we don't like, who can we sexually humiliate and degrade?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:06 PM on December 6, 2008


Presidents and doctors.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:07 PM on December 6, 2008


The image wasn't absolutely necessary to answer the question, but it was potentially helpful. Absolute necessity has not been the standard for deciding what belongs in an AskMe question.

Nor has potential usefulness been grounds for ignoring a vociferous negative response from the community, which is what this looked like when the thing went down. The edit was an imperfect compromise, none of us is trying to deny that, but it was one with pretty damned minimal impact and certainly wasn't some kind of damning precedent. Here we are talking about it, and merrily linking to it, right now.

This was a poorly framed and poorly formatted question. But that shouldn't be an invitation to put its sexual politics in shape.

It's less poorly framed and less poorly formatted now than it was when posted; it is no longer getting flagged up the wazoo; the image in question is dirt simple to find (google, metatalk) for folks who feel the need to evaluate it to answer the question; and in the mean time a bunch of people have actually been answering the apparent locus of the question—where and how—perfectly well.

The political angle came up only after it was explicitly raised in this thread, and it's pretty clear from Jessamyn's comment on such—as being explicitly unclear as a motivation or not by the asker, even—was not central to the reasoning for the removal of the link. A bunch of people on the site flagging a (yes, in my opinion, gratuitous regardless of some slim potential utility, and that's a great big separate discussion if we really want to dig into it) fight-starter of a NSFW image is what we're talking about here, not right-minding the collective ask metafilter sexual political dynamic.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:11 PM on December 6, 2008


cortexAdmin »» I think discussion of what should and shouldn't fly and when and why re: askme and links in context is fine, but there's some pretty aggro grandstanding bullshit in here and I'm mostly just sorry I didn't make it in here to call it out sooner. Display an ounce of perspective with this censorship/slippery-slope crap.

I don't know if this was specifically directed at me, but I believe I was the first to introduce the "censorship/slippery-slope crap."

I'm not defending the guy anymore after looking at his comment history. But there's puffed-shirt grandstanding, and there's commentary civilly made. I don't think what I said qualifies as the first, cortex.
posted by WCityMike at 6:26 PM on December 6, 2008


grobstein: "It's sexist," along with "it's wrong" and "it makes me uncomfortable" are not principles that we use to filter AskMe.

Bullshit. "It's wrong" is a principle we should use to filter everything, or else it's not really morality. And of course we use it (along with its corrolary, "sexism is wrong") to filter AskMe. For example, we post questions asking how to do illegal things. And I'm pretty damned sure that if Matt n all saw a question in which the intent was to do something horribly wrong and get help doing it, or if the question was really sexist, then it'd get deleted. And that's a good thing.
posted by koeselitz at 6:41 PM on December 6, 2008


By making a point of describing the painting as being a perfectly chaste nude - which it is - you framed SeizeTheDay's criticism as displaying a puritanical strain of "sanctimony". Which it wasn't.

I understood that you were saying an objection to the subject matter is irrelevant regardless of its grounds, but you did misrepresent StD's position. Your point would have merit without playing fast and loose with the context of your opponents' arguments - and since your own argument is that the why of the disapproval is unimportant anyway ("... but it also doesn't matter"), the only reason why I could see you addressing it at all would be to bolster your position on false grounds ("That's not true..."). I just saw it as lazy argumenting, and like I said, was unfair to StD and didn't do your own point of view any favours either.

This is why comments [critical of the subject matter]... are so besides the point. "It's sexist," along with "it's wrong" and "it makes me uncomfortable" are not principles that we use to filter AskMe.

They are, though. IIRC, there was an AskMe soliciting offensive jokes that got the hook, and another looking for offensive lyrics that didn't. As always, we have the guidelines and MeTa to work these things out, as much as a drag as it may seem sometimes.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:46 PM on December 6, 2008


Oops, above comment was a response to grobstein.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:49 PM on December 6, 2008


wombat scat would be a great band name. I'm just saying.
posted by jonmc at 6:49 PM on December 6, 2008


I bought one of everything on this site. Frame suggestions please?
posted by gman at 8:06 PM on December 6, 2008


gman,

You need to show us that your serious by buying all of these items too.
posted by lukemeister at 8:35 PM on December 6, 2008


um,

that *you're* serious. Yikes.
posted by lukemeister at 8:35 PM on December 6, 2008


I are serious Mefite. This are serious thread.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 11:19 PM on December 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Nude Removed? I remember that show from my childhood, but I think it was called the Nude Zoo Removed.

Where three delightful animals have fun with what they do.
posted by Snyder at 1:20 AM on December 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wonder how interested in the frame the OP really is? Not enough to give the dimensions of the poster. Not enough to include "frame" or "framing" in the tags. It seems to me that he just wanted to link to something he found amusing, and knew it wouldn't fly in the blue.

Whenever you wear your librarian glasses down on the end of your nose like this, jessamyn...

I love witty comments like this, because you can tell that the person spent a long time trying to craft a really scathing insult, a real gut-puncher. HA! LIBRARIAN!!!! Hee hee heee! *holds aching sides* No... really, your killing me here. aaaaaah haha. *wipes tear from eye*
posted by taz at 2:37 AM on December 7, 2008


"It's sexist," along with "it's wrong" and "it makes me uncomfortable" are not principles that we use to filter AskMe.

What koeselitz and Alvy said. It's nice that you make it crystal clear you have no idea how things have gone around here for the last couple of years. There are a couple of massive MeTa threads you need to catch up on. Do your homework.
posted by languagehat at 4:41 AM on December 7, 2008


men just aren't subjected to sex-themed verbal abuse/belittlement/etc as much when they're disliked or hated.

Sex-themed abuse for men = yuks about prison rape, which is pretty common on the nets.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:30 AM on December 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wonder how interested in the frame the OP really is? Not enough to give the dimensions of the poster. Not enough to include "frame" or "framing" in the tags. It seems to me that he just wanted to link to something he found amusing, and knew it wouldn't fly in the blue.

Honestly that was my feeling. The "if it isn't necessary, it goes" rule about links in AskMe has always been with us so that we don't have to second guess why someone may have decided to include a sketchy link.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:47 AM on December 7, 2008


Sex-themed abuse for men = yuks about prison rape, which is pretty common on the nets.

But note how that abuse requires the men be feminized (i.e., made someone's "bitch") first.
posted by timeistight at 8:11 AM on December 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


But note how that abuse requires the men be feminized (i.e., made someone's "bitch") first.

Not necessarily. See the jokes about dropping one's soap in the shower, or people flat out saying that they hope [insert convict here] gets raped in prison. There's no allusion to the victims being feminized in those... unless one takes the punch of the joke/comment to come from some unstated loss of manhood and not, y'know, the forced anal penetration.

Anyway, this "who's hurt most by prison rape jokes" stuff is a bit distasteful, because the answer is "people who have been, or live in fear of being, raped in prison".
posted by CKmtl at 9:08 AM on December 7, 2008


There is a school of thought that says even in male on male sex, one partner takes the "feminine" position, because they are entered.

I don't think that school of thought is accredited.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:33 AM on December 7, 2008


Yeah, some Russian student of that school of thought tried to lay it on me while out in a bar amongst friends.

I waited until he was about to swallow a mouthful of vodka and said something about the testicular fortitude required to take a beer-can-sized object in a hole the size of his nostril. He choked and snorted it out his nose.

Apparently, that burns like hell.
posted by CKmtl at 1:02 PM on December 7, 2008


Yes, yes it does. It burns almost as bad as when you try to take that object back out.

Oh... wait, you were...

Sorry.
posted by koeselitz at 1:35 PM on December 7, 2008


men just aren't subjected to sex-themed verbal abuse/belittlement/etc as much when they're disliked or hated.

Sex-themed abuse for men = yuks about prison rape, which is pretty common on the nets.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe on December 7


Yes, I'll certainly agree to that; I almost said as much in my original comment. My main point was, it just seems disingenuous to suggest that specifically sex-themed belittlement is AS common a way of belittling an unpopular male figure as it is for female figures. Not that it never happens to men, since it certainly does. But it's the default mode of belittling an unpopular female figure.

And I agree that it's no coincidence that sex-themed belittlement of men is nearly always either a suggestion that they're (a) really a woman (ya pussy!), (b) really gay (ya fag!), or (c) should be subject to forcible penetration by a man (yeah, well, enjoy taking it hard from Bruno when you get to Folsom).

I don't think there's a zero sum thing where accepting that women are hurt by sexism/misogyny/bad gener roles requires us to think that men are never hurt by those roles. Men are indeed hurt by them, and that's bad. Everybody is hurt by them; everybody is hurt when sex is a weapon. So let's not use it that way. Let's get rid of those roles/modes of belittlement, rather than reinforcing them when it suits us.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:12 PM on December 7, 2008 [5 favorites]


"unpopular female figure" vs. "on the nets"

Yeah, I'm thinking more of third-person slagging of public figures (Coulter, Palin) than of second-person internet fights between ordinary people.

I'll agree that in second-person fights probably men are more willing to slag each other with prison rape jokes/fag jokes/you're a pussy jokes than they are to directly attack a woman with sex-themed jokes.

I think third-person attacks on public figures are much more likely to be sex-themed when the target is a woman than a man. This is what I took five fresh fish to be talking about, and that's what my original claim was meant to be.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:16 PM on December 7, 2008


« Older Question about the order of As...  |  This thread with this comment ... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments

Post