• GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is not a hill I’d want to die on, but I do understand thinking this photo is fine. If I hadn’t been told it was from Playboy, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. It’s a conventionally-attractive woman in a hat showing a little shoulder. I wouldn’t be upset over Michaelangelo’s David either. It is less sexual than like 90% of modern TV or mass-market advertising. I suspect a similar image of “cleaner” provenance would not garner much attention at all, honestly.

    But it is weird that an image from such a source was chosen in the first place. It is understandable that it makes people uncomfortable, and it seems like there should be no shortage of suitable imagery that wouldn’t, so…easy sell, I’d think.

    On a related note, boy oh boy am I tired of every imagegen AI paper and project using the same type of vaguely fetishized portraits as examples.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Apparently the team making the first scanner needed a good test photo and that was the best they had on hand at that moment in terms of color variation and intensity.

      • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Which is still weird.

        Alexander Sawchuk, then an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California … along with a graduate student and the SIPI lab manager, was hurriedly searching the lab for a good image to scan for a colleague’s conference paper. … Just then, somebody happened to walk in with a recent issue of Playboy. The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner…

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna

        Everything about the story sounds like it was a rush job, a decision made on a whim, after exhausting their existing catalog of test images. And who bring a Playboy mag to their university’s computer lab, and advertises their possession? They don’t even say who it was, probably to protect them from any embarrassing professional consequences. To me, that’s probably the strongest reason to retire it: it’s unprofessional.

        • dankm@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          ·
          8 months ago

          And who bring a Playboy mag to their university’s computer lab, and advertises their possession?

          Probably a random grad student. They were just coming out of the “sexual revolution” of the 60s at that point. It’d be a lot weirder ten years earlier or ten years later.

          That a similar thing did happen ten years earlier is the weird part, I think.

        • million@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Keep in mind that Playboy had a reputation as more than just porn. A lot of really respected authors had work published in Playboy.

          I not sure of its culture status when the event in question happened, but it would have been different then say, Penthouse.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s a bit more to the scan. You usually see the cropped version, but the full version has naughty bits. Not sure if it’s ever been published that way in journals.

      • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        No there’s not, the scan thats been used has cropped out the nudity, it’s in like the second paragraph,

        Usage of the Lenna image in image processing began in June or July 1973 when an assistant professor named Alexander Sawchuck and a graduate student at the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute scanned a square portion of the centerfold image with a primitive drum scanner, omitting nudity present in the original image. They scanned it for a colleague’s conference paper, and after that, others began to use the image as well.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      I really don’t think the image itself is the issue. It’s the culture that would lead to brazenly sharing a porn magazine aroundnthe office, and subsequently using the image for a test photo. Then that same culture decided it should be standard because they liked looking at it. It indicates a culture of objectification of women. If an industry feels like sharing porn around is perfectly acceptable, you have to consider what else they think is acceptable. That’s what makes people uncomfortable (I assume, though I’m a straight man so not personal experience, just empathy).

        • Dempf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Absolutely nothing. But imagine you’re working with some people and everyone’s constantly posting porn in the group chat. You’re just trying to kind of exist and get your work done. You might start to feel pretty uncomfortable with that culture.

          There’s definitely a line between sex positivity, and including other people without their clear consent.

    • antidote101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Some people are triggered by nudity. On another timeline the conclusion of this “scandal” would be to include a retro photo of a naked dude in the test image data set (and maybe also switch Lena’s photo if she doesn’t want it in there anymore).

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t think the reason this is an issue is because it’s pornographic. It’s because it indicates a certain opinion that some people in the field had/have. Even in professional academic papers they were using a pornographic image of a woman, which shows their opinion of women is just as object to lust after.

        • antidote101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yes and I’m saying in a more sexually open society we’d just admit that people lust after people of all genders, and include some others in the data set.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I disagree. I think in a more sexually open society people wouldn’t be treated like pieces of meat. They’d be treated like people. Their opinions about sexual content would be considered.

            • antidote101@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I think in a more sexually open society …their opinions about sexual content would be considered.

              Like how I said in my original comment “switch Lena’s photo if she doesn’t want it in there anymore”…

              So as you can see, I was already saying a sexually open world would be considerate, even though you’re phrasing it as if we’re disagreeing. Perhaps this is because you wish the conversation to go to an oppositional and hence repressive/aggressive place.

              I think that would be a reasonable response if one felt subjugated and traumatized, injured and trapped by the current patriarchal systems of sex and power imbalance, and it might be difficult to see how sexuality, nudity, and pornography could be sociologically dealt with, understood, or theorised about outside of that framework.

              Thus a dream of a better world can be stolen and held back be the pre-existing and persisting traumas of how we treat sex, bodies, nudity, and self-image in this one.

              But there can be sex positive and body positive form of sex, sexuality and pornography that include being comfortable with nudity, and even taboo. I was proposing such a parallel world…

              But you continue to cast it as the same as this world. That is your choice, but to continue to make that same choice is an act of killing communication and hence progress on the issues of this world.

              The nature of fiction even in a passing comment, like the one I made, is to explore the possible and impossible. So beware what you make impossible.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                It’s not just her opinion on the picture that matters though. Other women (and probably other people) don’t want it to be used as a standard test image.

                I like that you’re making it out like I’m saying anything is impossible. I’m not. I’m stating that if people say they’re uncomfortable with something then they’re uncomfortable with it. It doesn’t matter how sexually open anything it. People’s opinions and consent are important, both that of the subject of the photo as well as other people in the field using this photo.

                • antidote101@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Yes, I’m saying in a more sexually liberated society, one that’s more comfortable with nudity and the human body, people might go: “Oh of course we can include nudes in the data set, here’s a bunch more!”.

                  You’re saying in a sexually liberated society one more comfortable with nudity, people would still be viewing this in a state of discomfort.

                  You came here to say this, regardless of anything I said, and so are yourself not interested in the consent of all parties in this very conversation (which is with a person by the way).

                  I am just a prop, and you simply don’t need to listen to me. Because you will say what you have to say and will mutilate whatever was being said in order to return to the status quo regardless of the comment you were replying to.

                  This isn’t about me, it’s about what you have to say. So I hope you feel better about having a one sided and belittling conversation.

                  I find you inadequate as an intelligent chat partner, so will block you now. I suspect that you will gain satisfaction from this, as a repressive. So enjoy.

        • Zacryon@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I wouldn’t say that it necessarily expresses a certain opinion towards women. I think a lot of people used it just because that’s how it’s done. It’s a piece history, a “fun” tradition. A lot of people didn’t even knew that this was taken from a pornographic magazine.

          However, thinking critically about it and considering a lot of good points, it’s surely not “fun” anymore and I also think it’s better to stop this.

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Streisand effect in motion. Me and a million other people get to see this for the first time today.

      • Dempf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        But the idea isn’t to keep anyone from seeing it. The idea is simply for a lusty image not to be used in academic papers (probably also better that it’s not used in college classes too).

        I love pictures of scantily clad women more than almost anyone. But even I can agree that the Lena image sends the wrong message to women joining the field.

        • systemglitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s fair and you are right, but I’m also pointing out a side effect this is causing. I find it interesting is all.

        • erwan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s not a lusty image if nobody knows what the full picture looks like. Hence the reference to the Streisand effect.

          What I’m not seeing in this thread is the reason why this picture is so over used.

          One reason is that it’s the perfect image to test graphics manipulation algorithms like compression for example. It has all the characteristics you want to check for: various textures, gradients, lightening… It’s like the benchy (3d printing) of image compression.

          The other reason is that once it established itself as the reference image, it was easier for researchers to compare algorithms and make sure the author doesn’t cheat by cherry picking a picture where his algorithm is clearly better.

          Researchers were used to see the common pitfalls of compressions algorithms on this image (the fur for example).

  • Eggyhead@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    A lot of people in this thread have a lot of really strong opinions without actually reading the article. The model was cool with it, but she herself also thinks it’s time to retire the photo from how it’s being used in image processing, where it likely isn’t even necessary in the first place. Respect her on that. I seriously doubt she cares if it remains accessible on the web for the pervs worrying about censorship. It’ll still be there if you desperately don’t want to lose your opportunity to take a gander.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s a value to having a standard image or images that are used to assess compression algorithms’ performance. It could just as easily be a picture of a bouquet of flowers, or a bunch of puppies.

        • BoscoBear@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Seems like this is a much more important than any of the other discussions going on. How many results were tainted by the fact that they were compressing a dithered print image.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, there is, so do not do that and let others do that if they want.

          Everybody can use whichever pictures they like as far as I am concerned.

          FFS, it’s as if there could be only one way for everyone

          • antidote101@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Everybody can use whichever pictures they like as far as I am concerned.

            Not really, it’s a shared data set to make sure colours appear at uniform levels across different media and types of software in order to maintain stable image formats that can be sent over internet protocols…

            …the whole point is to have a catalogue of standard test images to compare transfer and compression results to globally.

    • Klear@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah. I was originally thinking this is just more of typical American prudishness, but if the impetus came from her, that’s a good enough reason to retire the pic.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Forsén is quoted as saying, “I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”

    Since Lena herself decided she wanted to retire the image, I don’t have any qualms with them not accepting new papers using it. It’s really weird that her “big break” came from scientific papers, of all things.

    I do wonder, however, if more recent papers (2010 and forward) using that image were doing so as reference to older papers, or entirely contained to their own research.

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I do wonder, however, if more recent papers (2010 and forward) using that image were doing so as reference to older papers, or entirely contained to their own research.

      I hadn’t heard of this before this post, the pic is innocuous enough, i wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people don’t even know that’s a crop of an old magazine photo.

  • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is kinda interesting. I work in this field and have seen that image show up all the time in papers but never knew the origins.

    I think it’s the right move to ban it and I’m surprised there’s so many people defending it. This isn’t about censorship or being a prude or anything like that. It’s just a bit weird that it’s from a playboy and if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.

    The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don’t hurt anyone. Perhaps we can move on and use some less alienating pictures for image processing papers, too.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think it’s nice to have traditions inside areas of research, and if somebody said “let’s retire the Utah teapot. It’s too simple a construct and has no bearing anymore” I’d be opposed.

      Similar with “Lenna”. Is it a good test image? Not anymore, but if somebody wants to include it as tradition then let them. It hurts no one. Nobody is making money off it. Most people just know it as an image that’s been in many seminal graphics papers they want to emulate, but even if they do know it as being from an issue of Playboy, why is that a problem?

      I’m not angry about it. I’m not going to die on any hill about it. I just see it as pointless and infantile for the IEEE to refuse papers over something so trivial.

      • richmondez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m wary of the argument for any practice continuing being just because it’s always happened and is “tradition”. Similarly though I’m wary of the argument that a valid practice should cease just because it makes a few people uncomfortable. If the only thing going for the Lena image is “tradition” then there really is no argument for keeping it.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        The issue was that it did make some people uncomfortable, so it was harmful. You can’t just ignore the reasons stated and then say it’s pointless. The ban didn’t come out of nowhere.

        • jpeps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well said. I feel like so many people here are missing one of the biggest issues with the photo as far as I understand it, which is encouraging women into STEM. For many women I think this photo felt a bit like walking into a professor’s office to see they have bikini photos on their walls. It just cements the feeling that these sciences are boys’ clubs.

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Banning something harmless is censorship. It’s a test image of a beautiful woman, not glorifying violence or terrorism.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s not censorship. They can choose to publish or not publish anything they want. Anyone is still free to publish the image in other journals that don’t ban it.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      Utah teapots

      Offensive to people who react bad to caffeine or whose relatives had been killed by a falling teapot.

      Stanford bunnies

      Offensive to people who think there’s a furry connection.

      and if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.

      I can understand that and those people can use another image when making their own examples.

      It’s not a bad thing to have more empathy, but there’s common sense.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        https://www.yalescientific.org/2020/11/by-the-numbers-women-in-stem-what-do-the-statistics-reveal-about-ongoing-gender-disparities/

        Down the bottom there are some statistics about how many women experience sexual harassment and gender based discrimination in STEM positions. They also tend to have worse outcomes in general and fewer will go on to work in their field.

        While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.

        If you can’t see how using a cropped image from a playboy for no reason in an image processing paper is different from your made up examples and could make some people feel uncomfortable then maybe you’re lacking common sense and empathy.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It wasn’t chosen for no reason. It was chosen because it presents good test cases for image processing. Not great ones, just the best they had at that particular moment.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re right, I wasn’t particularly clear. That was certainly the case originally, I just don’t think there is a good reason for it going forward.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Historical reasons. I personally used it in a project around 2015 because of its history. And you’d need to use it if you’re comparing against anything else that used it, though given its age, that seems unlikely.

              But like I said elsewhere, I’m ambivalent about its future use.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Sounds fair. If you can produce it as a more suitable test image than the others available, I’ll use it.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          The thing is that those reasons are made up just like my examples.

          While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.

          I don’t think this is correct.

          then maybe you’re lacking common sense and empathy.

          Maybe I just don’t confuse empathy with doing what idiots want me to do.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            People were surveyed about the image, there are articles about it, an entire documentary has been made about it with the support of Lenna. How you can just come along and say that’s all made up is honestly beyond me. And I’m pretty sure that the collective IEEE and the ethics researchers who have written about this aren’t idiots. I really think you are confused about what empathy is, but I don’t see myself convincing you of that. So uh, have a nice day.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah, there’s a reason experiments are not being replaced by voting.

              You may consider this comment of yours valuable if you want.

      • Jojo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I would be very surprised if the population of “people upset by the use of a teapot/bunny as a test render” was even within a couple orders of magnitude of “people upset by the use of a porn photo as a test image”

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Except that people do, in fact, remember. Sure, if society gets destroyed and future archeologists find the cropped photo and that’s all that remains of it, it’s not a porn photo any more. But for now, people know where it came from. That matters.

            Edit: typos, clarity

              • Jojo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I mean obviously this is a porn device, it has access to the Internet. How is that relevant? One’s personal devices are exactly where one’s porn should be, not in an academic paper about image processing.

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            No. But the fact that it isn’t obviously from a porn shoot doesn’t change that it’s from a porn shoot. The model has indicated she doesn’t want it used for this, and other women have indicated they are bothered by this.

            Are you really insinuating that there isn’t any other possible standard besides this exact photo to demonstrate methods?

            See? I can straw-man too.

            • 0x0@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              doesn’t change that it’s from a porn shoot

              Your point? (I’d call it more erotica than porn but that’s irrelevant.) If your culture sexualizes nudity per se that’s not my problem and if nudity offends you well that’s your problem. She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on (and, for most of her life, couldn’t care less).

              The model has indicated she doesn’t want it used for this

              It’s a pretty valid reason to me and it would be nice if people respected that. Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her, but chose to let it slide 'cos… free publicity.

              there isn’t any other possible standard besides this exact photo

              I never said that. It’s an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should’ve been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.

              But these are not the reasons the IEEE is banning the photo, now are they?

              This is an interesting video on the matter.

              • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

                This

                Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

                I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

              • Jojo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on

                Sorry, consented to what? And what does that have to do with this? The existence of the photo or its continued use as a photo and as porn are not at issue.

                Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her

                And again, this isn’t a rights issue. Lena isn’t upset because her rights are being violated, and neither is anyone else.

                I never said that.

                And I never said photos of shoulders are porn. You made a straw man or my argument, so I made a straw man or yours. Neither one was particularly useful to discuss.

                Of course there were reasons the photo was chosen originally, convenience and the fact that it has just the right amount of complicated detail. But those don’t really matter now because, as you said:

                It’s an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should’ve been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.

                People are upset because the use of a photo from a porn shoot, especially one that has no other particular reason to use it besides “tradition,” is emblematic of a culture that is exclusionary to women.

                Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn’t really a good faith argument.

                • 0x0@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn’t really a good faith argument.

                  According to you.

                  Tradition is not really an excuse for anything really.

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.

      I’m lacking in empathy.

      The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don’t hurt anyone.

      Ooooh i’m sure someone, somewhere, somehow will feel offended. Better ban those too.

      Yes, the provenance is “questionable”, but it’s a pic of a human wearing a hat, ffs.

      The model being tired of it would be enough reason for me to stop using it (as you mentioned, there are plenty of alternatives); but American prudeness? No.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        This isn’t about prudishness. No one’s offended by the picture. It makes people uncomfortable because it’s from a playboy. The problem is that it brings the objectification of women to the fore in a male dominated field where women often face sexual harassment and aren’t taken seriously.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a cropped image of a naked woman looking over her shoulder out of a playboy magazine. I think it’s reasonable to stop using it for academic papers. You can still look at it all you want though.

      • Klear@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s an unlicensed picture of a woman who was previously fine with it being used like this, but who recently changed her mind and thinks it’s time to stop.