Prude alert: Sexually explicit wm themes in emerge

Message

YetiChick · Post by **YetiChick** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:55 pm

tuxq,

When I see someone - male or female - pick up a cucumber at the store, I think, "Ewwww!" Cucumbers are very, very yucky to me. Hate the taste, hate the smell. It might be for just those reasons, but the other use just never occurs to me.

Tracy

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:00 pm

Lol... my idea of it comes from experience... (not being used on me you sick farks.)

Edit: Argh, see what internet pr0n has done to me! ... mmm... be back in a few minutes

flickerfly · Post by **flickerfly** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:12 pm

Tracy you bring some interesting points and I appreciate how you stated them. I understand how you would say that between two individuals that what you accept is your responsibility. I agree. You also pretty much say that is is common courtesy to inform somone of what they are accepting if it is not immediately obvious and especially so if it could be offensive, damaging, etc.

Gentoo, as an organization with a friendly reputation, that has served it well should protect that reputation. Marking offensive content, especially if it isn't recognizable, is an excellent way to maintain that reputation. Ignoring it and allowing users to be offended when they view something considered culturally offensive in many environments without warning despite a pre-defined vehicle by which to provide this warning is damaging to their reputation and immediately removes if from being used in many environments.

Perhaps there is already a policy, but in the interests of Gentoo and its users, I suggest that a policy is neccesary to protect Gentoo's reputation in a world much larger than personal geek computers.

We've already hashed morality, but this is also an issue of reputation. That goes outside of morality and simply into what do people think. Doesn't matter if what they think is wrong.

I understand from what I've read that the ebuild has been adjusted accordingly. I'm not real sure that's true because that point has been rather confused in the postings here, but assuming it is I appreciate the action that has been taken on it. Beyond that, I think offensive content should be labeled as such so the user knows and can find out why before going and installing it on their computer. Something that also has been hashed out is that there are multiple levels of offensive-ness. The policy should pick a relatively acceptable level and make it known where that level is. Of course, that isn't an exact science, but a reasonable guideline for those who want to make use of the -offensive flag. For those who don't, no need to go find the information.

flickerfly · Post by **flickerfly** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:22 pm

tuxq wrote:Those who complain: When they see these pictures, they are aroused, possibly subconsciously, and get aggravated by the idea--sexual problems at home?

As an answer, not at all.

Honestly, it's about a desire to see women respected as people, not objects. It is truly sad to me to see them portrayed as objects of possesiveness to lust after like some fancy car or something. Granted, some of you are going to say that isn't that case for you, but it sure is for many. The porn industry makes a bundle selling "sex". When was the last time you heard of a guy saying, "I wonder if she's a good cook" while looking at a naked woman?

motub · Post by **motub** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:27 pm

YetiChick wrote:probably arguing just for the sheer fun of it.

We're not in agreement, but I'm definitely debating for the fun of it.

I get the main thrust of disagreement now, though; Is one, or should one be, required to be polite? In pure terms, no, and of course if it was automatic we wouldn't have laws and organized religion trying to force us all to be at least minimally polite (don't kill each other, etc).

But in this kind of a situation, where a lack of politeness is not explicit or is actively concealed (come on, there is no way that someone can reasonably say that they had no idea whatsoever that the images linked above could ever in a million years possibly be offensive to a fair number of people), that is deceitful, and deceit is often used to cause active harm, as we all know (making it "bad", as in "Fire, bad!").

I would not necessarily think that an innocuous item like Windowmaker themes would have "offensive" material included-- unless of course I was paranoid, which I'd rather not be, thanks-- the lack of an "offensive" flag when I did an emerge -pv would tend to support this concept, and since the builder of the package is not known specifically to be "rude", the likelihood is that s/he is "polite" (since most people generally are). So there's no real reasons for me to take "extraordinary precautions" like checking them at home first, etc. Unless of course someone alerts me to the fact that there is such a reason.... which yes, I suppose I am requiring people to do-- if you want to be a bastard, then stand up and say you're a bastard to my face. You like faked-up quasi-lesbian porn on your desktop and you want to share it with the world by putting it in a package, then what's the problem with letting me know that right up front? I don't see how me tripping over it by accident is taking responsibility for your personality, which I agree that people should do.

How about we all take care of ourselves with the assumption that nobody is required to do anything to help us?

Interesting concept. Not exactly true, naturally (the human race wouldn't have lasted too long if we did not have instinctual requirements to raise and nurture our young, or to acquire a mate to reproduce), but it has its points (like removing the "all-seeing eye" who would be "requiring" us to help each other under the current mental model).

But really, even if such a self-reliant-yet-somehow-cooperative world could exist (which it can't at this stage of our development), it doesn't sound very nice to live in. To me at least. Mostly because it does not include the confident assumption that if you actually do need help that you would really get it. Self-reliancy cuts both ways, you know.

Last point (and then I'm really going, as this is just a diversion, and I don't want to really make anybody mad here

)

YetiChick wrote:
and for me to ask, "What is it?" before taking it is not particularly overly demanding.
Oh, absolutely not. But if I choose not to answer (rude) then you can simply not take it. (smart)

True. But you have given me information that I can use to make an informed decision by not answering and proving yourself "rude". Whether it's right or just to force people to provide that information, the plain fact is that getting some sort of information is the only way to make appropriate decisions for one's own protection in whatever area of life is in question.

And providing this information is (and should be) a requirement under the corporate/professional entity social model that we currently suffer with.

Stormy Eyes · Post by **Stormy Eyes** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:34 pm

flickerfly wrote:Honestly, it's about a desire to see women respected as people, not objects. It is truly sad to me to see them portrayed as objects of possesiveness to lust after like some fancy car or something. Granted, some of you are going to say that isn't that case for you, but it sure is for many. The porn industry makes a bundle selling "sex". When was the last time you heard of a guy saying, "I wonder if she's a good cook" while looking at a naked woman?

And just how many women, when they see pictures of a man naked or barechested, say, "I wonder if he's good with tools"? It's cuts both ways, and it's not like the men and women who pose for naughty pics do so under duress. Again, use the offensive flag and let people decide for themselves. The horse is dead, and you people are scaring the poor hungry vultures away.

jj11888 · Post by **jj11888** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:52 pm

I am 15 years old. I think (but im not sure) that i got windowmaker installed (i certainly installed all i could to get some stuff to mess with in fluxbox's slit, just to try it out

)

Now, if there is porn on my computer, and i had no knoledge, then Gentoo is breaking the law. No matter that i do not even use window maker or view the themes, I have been given access to porn without anything saying that gentoo is not responsible. This is illeagal AFAIK in the USA, weither you agree with it ethically or not.

Lets all atleast agree that it is illeagal for Gentoo to have given me porn in this country. That alone should be enough reason to allow the filtering of it.

End of disscusion, it is illeagal in my case, thus either I am forced to not emerge windowmaker, or that portage should default to not giving me these items.

btw, i resent those refering to 'little kids' after i posted prevously

So, end this discussion. Or else realize the potenitial for me to sue Gentoo Technologies. (which i would not do anyways, but if some guy emerged it and his mom (if she was a sterotypical soccour mom or something similar) found out,............)

YetiChick · Post by **YetiChick** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:13 pm

Flickerfly:

If it is a voluntary choice on the part of the developers to maintain the offensive flag then I have no problem with it. If they choose to make it their responsibility to figure out what is or is not likely to offend and then mark content appropriately, let them. If I don't like their choices, I'm free to look elsewhere. I think they are asking for an endless stream of debates and lot of screaming about too much - or not enough - censorship, but it's their decision to make. My main point has been that it is simply *not* appropriate to refuse to accept responsibility for your own choices and actions.

Tracy

YetiChick · Post by **YetiChick** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:43 pm

motub:

I use the term 'argument' interchangably with the term 'debate'. I guess I just don't see the negative connotations of 'arguing'.

Deceit is definitely bad. I don't think any happened in this case - not even a little - but we'll have to stay at odds on that one, too, I guess.

If you honestly would never have thought that there might be nudity included with a window manager... I don't know. I mean, come on - you're the one who thought a cucumber was suggestive, and *I* would never download a window manager or its themes if I was afraid of porn.

Maybe I've just been online for too long, but I certainly don't consider myself paranoid.

Most people are generally polite? You live in a different world than I do. Whole new debate if you're serious about that, so I'll let it drop.

My comment about assuming no guarantee of outside help is, of course, intended to apply to society, not families or loved ones. You *must* assume your loved ones will help you when needed. Duh.

Do I really come across as that cold?

But really, even if such a self-reliant-yet-somehow-cooperative world could exist (which it can't at this stage of our development), it doesn't sound very nice to live in. To me at least.

I agree, I think that either of us would go absolutely insane in the other's "perfect world".

the plain fact is that getting some sort of information is the only way to make appropriate decisions for one's own protection in whatever area of life is in question. And providing this information is (and should be) a requirement under the corporate/professional entity social model that we currently suffer with.

I simply cannot agree. If you made the simple distinction of the requirement being there *only* when an 'informed decision' was absolutely necessary, I'd cut you some slack. Maybe even agree with you. But I'm sorry, you don't need - *nobody* needs - WindowMaker. Your life will not be changed by either its absence *or* by the silly, naughty themes. (If someone is genuinely so messed up that merely seeing one of those images can do 'harm' then they should not be on the 'net. Period. For their own good. Their choice, though, isn't it?)

Tracy

csawtell · Post by **csawtell** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:54 pm

Now that Linux is rapidly entering the mainstream we have to be pretty careful about these issues. For example, I have a part time situation teaching Unix computer administration to a small group of students, one of whom is a fairly prim 14 y.o. girl. I and am using Gentoo as the Linux distribution of choice.
I am absolutely certain that if I was to be the apparent cause of importing anything even vaguely pornographic into the school environment I would lose this situation, and probably never be able to replace it with something similar in the future. Please, please never ever broadcast controversial images in a default install. In other words, can we have a +controversial USE flag, instead of a -offensive one.

rossk · Post by **rossk** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:57 pm

flickerfly wrote:
jj11888 wrote: For that reason I think we should have differant 'adult' and 'offensive' USE flags, as people can still get any offensive gaim smilies or fortunes without having portage break the law for them when they go to install window maker
I think this could probably be expanded even further, but certainly a good point. "crude" "adult" "porn" "offensive" and "nude-art" could each be defined differently.

What if my "Nude-Art" is your "Porn"???

rossk · Post by **rossk** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:16 pm

<real> I'm under 18 and living with my with my parents in the United States. If my parents found porn on my computer, I would suffer serious consequences. They would consider some of those themes pornographic. I know enough to be able to remove the offensive themes. I have never used WM. </real>

<imaginary situation for sake of argument> I *love* the windows manager theme package for the most part, but I am fully aware that if my parents saw the pornographic themes, my parents would flip out, and I would suffer serious consequences (grounding, revocation of computer use priveleges, etc). Unfortunately, I do not have the computer skills nessesary to remove the offensive themes, so I run a different theme. A month or so later my dad's computer breaks and it's back at Gateway HQ getting repaired, so he's using my computer in the meantime. While checking out my system settings one day he find the offensive theme. I get grounded and can't use my computer for a month, and no amount of explaining helps, because that's who my dad is. </imaginary>

That situation could happen if I actually used WM. Having guidelines for an offensive flag will not hurt anyone. Seriously, can we name anyone that will be hurt by enforcing offensive USE flag guidelines?

jors · Post by **jors** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:52 pm

I get grounded and can't use my computer for a month, and no amount of explaining helps, because that's who my dad is

Do you know that your parents had sex, and as a result you where born.
They probably kept there close on during this most practiced 'ritual' of the world. And because your father is sexual frustrated we need a offensive use flags?

That situation could happen if I actually used WM. Having guidelines for an offensive flag will not hurt anyone. Seriously, can we name anyone that will be hurt by enforcing offensive USE flag guidelines?

Who is hurt by a nice looking naked woman on my desktop?. If you find it offensive, then don't use it. But do not put American politics in use flags.

jj11888 · Post by **jj11888** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:07 pm

jors wrote:
I get grounded and can't use my computer for a month, and no amount of explaining helps, because that's who my dad is
Do you know that your parents had sex, and as a result you where born.
They probably kept there close on during this most practiced 'ritual' of the world. And because your father is sexual frustrated we need a offensive use flags?

That situation could happen if I actually used WM. Having guidelines for an offensive flag will not hurt anyone. Seriously, can we name anyone that will be hurt by enforcing offensive USE flag guidelines?
Who is hurt by a nice looking naked woman on my desktop?. If you find it offensive, then don't use it. But do not put American politics in use flags.

First of all, this is above weither you find those against porn to be sexually frustrated or if you think porngraphy is morally wrong. Nor is it a matter of politics. The point is, IT IS, WITHOUT A DOUBT, ILLEAGAL FOR AN AMERICAN ORGANIZATION TO ALLOW PORN TO BE GIVEN OUT LIKE THIS

If you want to argue the last point, go ahead. else, the discusion for and against porngraphy belongs in a differant forum.

viperlin · Post by **viperlin** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:07 pm

jors wrote:
I get grounded and can't use my computer for a month, and no amount of explaining helps, because that's who my dad is
Do you know that your parents had sex, and as a result you where born.
They probably kept there close on during this most practiced 'ritual' of the world. And because your father is sexual frustrated we need a offensive use flags?

That situation could happen if I actually used WM. Having guidelines for an offensive flag will not hurt anyone. Seriously, can we name anyone that will be hurt by enforcing offensive USE flag guidelines?
Who is hurt by a nice looking naked woman on my desktop?. If you find it offensive, then don't use it. But do not put American politics in use flags.

FFS it's not american politics it's common sense (ps before replying look at my country, the one that broadcasts "the life of semour butts" at 10pm on terestrial TV accessible by anyone.

useflag does no harm to you and assists people who use gentoo in places where such stuff is NSFW, why object? because you have to type "offensive" in your make.conf? and an extra 9 letters is somehow out of the question?

viperlin · Post by **viperlin** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:12 pm

jors wrote: Who is hurt by a nice looking naked woman on my desktop?. If you find it offensive, then don't use it. But do not put American politics in use flags.

in response to this, you wouldn't be saying the same thing if it was a naked man... think about it

if the matrix has taught us anything it's that as long as humans are given a choice, they are happy.

(and i allready have offensive in my make.conf.

jj11888 · Post by **jj11888** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:15 pm

viperlin wrote: (and i allready have offensive in my make.conf.

As do I, for fortunes and what ever else may have crude jokes or just playful things like that. Thats why I would rather it be a seperate flag for adult material (not that I wouldn't mind just add 'games-misc/fortune offensive' to my package.uses and removing offensive in make.conf, i guess it isn't that big a deal)

jj11888 · Post by **jj11888** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:32 pm

jors wrote: But do not put American politics in use flags.

I assume you mean law, not politics

I think the 'gif' USE flag, or atleast one of those related USE flags, were added due to patent volations (this was also the reason the 'png' format was made IIRC)

The whole concept of the restricted fetching (and that you have to fetch your downloads if there are licensing issues) is an example of law affecting the very way portage works

The law of the land is what rules, unless you would like Gentoo to lose the NFP and become sued

You are hearing me and others say it should be a USE flag, giving you the freedom to use it if you wish, and giving everyone else to not, for their own reasons, weither those reasons are good or not goes into another forum. Now, what more can you ask now that your offered freedom for both of us?

iverson0881 · Post by **iverson0881** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:49 pm

I'm 16 and I don't want porn.

Simple.

If some other people like porn make the USE flag "offensive" or whatever term sees fit.

I don't want porn on my desktop. Good thing I don't use WM.

csawtell · Post by **csawtell** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:27 am

What is the situation as of now?

If I
emerge sync && emerge windowmaker
today will any controversial images be installed?

I don't care about the politics, but I do care about what might appear on the screen when the head teacher comes around tomorrow to see my class doing their Linux lesson.

jj11888 · Post by **jj11888** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:33 am

csawtell wrote:What is the situation as of now?

If I
emerge sync && emerge windowmaker
today will any controversial images be installed?

I don't care about the politics, but I do care about what might appear on the screen when the head teacher comes around tomorrow to see my class doing their Linux lesson.

It looks like its removed from windowmaker-themes

30 Jun 2003; Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> :
Porn now removed per discussion on -core.

28 Jun 2003; Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> :
Added local USE flag to filter out the pr0n #23635.

Edit: is it just me, or is there something wrong with those dates?

Roguelazer · Post by **Roguelazer** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:39 am

It's still in windowmaker-themes, afaik. I mean, re-emerging windowmaker-themes didn't remove it from my sys...

soda_popstar · Post by **soda_popstar** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:07 am

The offensive flag should be in place for the Windowmaker themes.

I don't agree with the idea that everything should be allowed in the name of freedom. If one wants the explicit themes so much, then they probably shouldn't think too much of needing to add a simple USE="offensive" to their make.conf.

I think that including sexually explicit themes in the package is more offensive than not including them. To those of you who like the explicit themes, please have courtesy for those of us who don't like the content. Using the "offensive" flag makes it easy for you to include it if you like.

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:44 am

As I said, since not all females would want pics of females, that should be taken out. Of course, a I think a male and female USE variable would be nice too. Of course, if they made the female include a bunch of stereotypical crap I think the female Gentoo users would kill people so I'd say just stick with more males in the pictures.

flickerfly · Post by **flickerfly** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:24 pm

YetiChick wrote:Flickerfly:

If it is a voluntary choice on the part of the developers to maintain the offensive flag then I have no problem with it. If they choose to make it their responsibility to figure out what is or is not likely to offend and then mark content appropriately, let them. If I don't like their choices, I'm free to look elsewhere. I think they are asking for an endless stream of debates and lot of screaming about too much - or not enough - censorship, but it's their decision to make. My main point has been that it is simply *not* appropriate to refuse to accept responsibility for your own choices and actions.

Tracy

Thanks for info on the current way things are. I think a change is neccessary to adopt a policy. The damage of not marking it is far more likely than the damage of marking it. I have no problem with a "controversial" flag rather than an "offensive" flag being part of the policy. Someone mentioned that and I think it is an excellent compromise as it recognizes a possible problem and allows the user to decide. It side-steps the argument that asks, "What is offensive to who?", rather effectively.

Would anyone be interested in helping write a policy that would follow something along those lines? I seem to remember reading something about an official way to present policy changes. Anyone remember that and have a link? I'm guessing it's related to bugs.gentoo.org

Prude alert: Sexually explicit wm themes in emerge

Controversial images in WM.

Re: Controversial images in WM.