Difference between revisions of "Talk:Self breast exam"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
: How odd an attitude. It is true that on its own, the image of a breast obviously doesn't have a corrupting influence. However, on the subject of nudity, how is the line drawn. There has to be a threshold of tolerance somewhere, right? Is a bare breast OK? How about full frontal nudity? What about a picture of an erect penis? If we are allowing nudity, there must be some guideline as to where the the threshold is drawn? Who decides this? Who polices it? Is it even possible for such a guideline to be anything more than unambiguous and subjective? Would it not be sensible to just conclude perhaps we should just consider human nudity inappropriate for a reference on which we hope children will learn? It's not like the site will lack serious informative content by having a policy against human nudity. A depiction of how to perform a breast exam can be just as effective if shown with a clothed breast or with some kind of breast analog. Although, perhaps the job of teaching about breast examination should be left to qualified doctors? --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT) | : How odd an attitude. It is true that on its own, the image of a breast obviously doesn't have a corrupting influence. However, on the subject of nudity, how is the line drawn. There has to be a threshold of tolerance somewhere, right? Is a bare breast OK? How about full frontal nudity? What about a picture of an erect penis? If we are allowing nudity, there must be some guideline as to where the the threshold is drawn? Who decides this? Who polices it? Is it even possible for such a guideline to be anything more than unambiguous and subjective? Would it not be sensible to just conclude perhaps we should just consider human nudity inappropriate for a reference on which we hope children will learn? It's not like the site will lack serious informative content by having a policy against human nudity. A depiction of how to perform a breast exam can be just as effective if shown with a clothed breast or with some kind of breast analog. Although, perhaps the job of teaching about breast examination should be left to qualified doctors? --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | But an extremely detailed sculture of a man's penis and scrotum is okay with you? | ||
Revision as of 02:46, March 16, 2007
How was that image offensive and/or graphic. The woman's breast was concealed by her hand - it was a harmless image demonstrating exam technique.
Highly graphic and offensive image? Oh please! JamesK 22:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- Is this not intended as a reference tool that is considered safe for children? Do you really consider nudity appropriate? --BillOReillyFan 22:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- That wasn't nudity. Really, how on earth was that 'unsafe' for children? JamesK 22:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- I saw a woman's body. I saw no clothes. It was completely unnecessary. The article is just as informative without it, and much more friendly to younger users. They don't need to see a woman touching herself intimately to learn about breast examinations. --BillOReillyFan 22:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- That wasn't nudity. Really, how on earth was that 'unsafe' for children? JamesK 22:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
How is the female form offensive to children? Especially a photo of a breast exam? It is not even remotely sexual... Are you also going to disallow presentation of Michaelangelo's David?
- Michaelangelo's David is a piece of rock, not an actual person. --BillOReillyFan 22:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
It's still a visual representation of the human form. How, in all honesty, do you think this photo is offensive? This is an illustration of a diagnostic technique. How does that warrant offensiveness? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from here...
- Would you not find it inappropriate for such a picture to be hanging on the wall of a kindergarten or elementary school class? If so, why would we tolerate it here? --BillOReillyFan 22:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- Is this site really for kindergarteners? JamesK 22:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
No, actually. I do not find a photo of the human form offensive for children. For heaven's sake, about 50% of children are brestfed in infancy. Once a child reaches the age of 5, how do breasts suddenly become offensive. Furthermore, many young women do not know how to perform a correct breast exam. In my experience, photographs are extremely helpful in this arena.
- How odd an attitude. It is true that on its own, the image of a breast obviously doesn't have a corrupting influence. However, on the subject of nudity, how is the line drawn. There has to be a threshold of tolerance somewhere, right? Is a bare breast OK? How about full frontal nudity? What about a picture of an erect penis? If we are allowing nudity, there must be some guideline as to where the the threshold is drawn? Who decides this? Who polices it? Is it even possible for such a guideline to be anything more than unambiguous and subjective? Would it not be sensible to just conclude perhaps we should just consider human nudity inappropriate for a reference on which we hope children will learn? It's not like the site will lack serious informative content by having a policy against human nudity. A depiction of how to perform a breast exam can be just as effective if shown with a clothed breast or with some kind of breast analog. Although, perhaps the job of teaching about breast examination should be left to qualified doctors? --BillOReillyFan 22:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
But an extremely detailed sculture of a man's penis and scrotum is okay with you?