[subego]

The idea behind that installation is that lots of women think their bodies don't live up to some imaginary ideal.

I assume this is a suitable topic for discussion, and in discussing it see discussing this installation.

Where exactly is the line here? Can it not be linked to? Can it be a link behind a spoiler tag so there's no chance of stumbling upon the gallery accidentally? Is it because it didn't have NSFW tags? I must admit on both points I assume a certain amount of intelligence, and that level is such that if you click on a link called "Great Wall of Vagina" you have at least a minimal concept of what you're going to get.

Is it because clinical names for parts of our bodies are inappropriate in thread titles?

I'm asking for guidance here.

[reader50]

We were uncomfortable with the thread title, and especially where the link went.

I have to admit I didn't read anything on the other side. The pics suggested one of those weirder Art exhibits that turn up from time to time. Stereotypically with government funding.

Further text on this side (such as you've posted here) might have helped, along with an NSFW warning or similar. As it is, we waited until 3 staff checked in. All were uncomfortable with it. Perhaps the other two interpreted it as "shock art" too before reading anything.

[subego]

Both reasoned and understandable.

Thanks!

[subego]

And sorry I didn't play the post more safely. I was trying to lead things as little as possible.

That's not supposed to be an excuse for making your lives needlessly more difficult, just a plea for understanding that making your lives needlessly more difficult was not my intent.

[ghporter]

We'll see how the new thread goes. If it slips into childishness and rudeness even a little, we'll shut it down fast. I've posted my thoughts and what I hope all will see as guidelines for a real discussion, but if it gets stupid, it's gone.

[KLP]

Very interested to see this after receiving the google watch email.

I find it ignorant and arrogant that the administrators of this forum would remove the original thread and take umbrage at its topic. How can you remove something without researching it first? As for discussing with three staff that has no substance what so ever. What about the listed testimonies of the volunteers who participated, that's 400 women! What about the hundreds of thousands of respondents and appreciators of this artwork. Refer to the artists Facebook page if in doubt. What about the lives of the woman who's self confidence and self esteem has been improved by participating, viewing and hearing about this project, view the documentaries available online. None of which you have bothered to look into. Its this typical small minded and narrow attitude that is constricting the freedom of the Internet. You should be whole heartedly ashamed of your ignorance and nativity.

[subego]

Did you read the original thread? It had no topic or context. I had the name of the installation as the thread title, and a link to one of the panels. That was the entirity of the post. This was intentional on my part. One of the truisms of exhibiting art is the artist loses control over context, doubly so when that art is made available as an infinitely copyable digital image.

Part of the experiment was to see whether after seeing it people decided to hunt down the original context or make their own. I'd say my experiment had a result.

Regardless, I think the most important thing to note is the staff explained their position and allowed me to repost it in a new thread. If you think this is small minded and ignorant, all I can say is you have little experience with Internet forums, let alone ones which consider themselves to be "family-friendly". This is an all-ages computer help forum, not an instrument of social justice.

[ghporter]

KLP, we seldom have people register just to comment in our Feedback forum...

As I noted in the replacement thread (which is going strong and remaining pretty much civil and not descending into childishness), I pointed out that, as it was, the original thread was likely to be turned into a junior high school snicker and vulgarity fest. With the new thread, given some serious ground rules, we've managed to avoid that and actually discuss the issue, at least to some extent. Check it out before you decide our staff has been draconian on this. We've been called worse, over much less important issues, and I think we're still in the clear on this. We're working to avoid having our forums turn into a stage for name calling and vulgar, school boy idiocy. So far, we've done OK at that...

[flmiller]

I like being native. As a matter of fact, I revel in it .

[Waragainstsleep]

I can see why you might have jumped to the conclusion that the thread was pointing to some shock art. Had a slang term been used instead I'd have totally accepted all your above explanations but I find it odd that several of you seem so uncomfortable with the word vagina being in the title and perhaps anywhere. That is the proper name for it after all. Making a fuss about it won't help to stop anyone else giggling.

[ghporter]

For the record, a vagina is an internal structure. The art piece is of castings of vulvas.

[subego]

We like our euphemisms here.

Oddly, while I've tried to pack-in every fun, non-vulgar name for genitals in that thread, I've shied away from ones like "vag", "vagoo", and "va-jay-jay".

While still fun, those all (weakly) trip my vulgarity sensors.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

For the record, a vagina is an internal structure. The art piece is of castings of vulvas.

You're not looking closely enough.

Put it up on the largest monitor you can find, like at a Best Buy, and get your face as close as you can. If you stay like that long enough, you'll see it.

[subego]

Since we have a thread named "Provocative Art Installation", which this thread isn't really about, I think the renamed thread title is unnecessarily ambiguous.