Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#31

Post by eyelidlessness »

kadoban wrote: post #13
eyelidlessness wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are “proper” colors to represent genitals?

A variety of human skin (and hair and etc) tones would seem appropriate. Is there something more to this question than it appear at first?

Well since the manufacturer is in the conversation: yes I’m coming from the perspective that an arbitrary color helps avoid racial stereotypes, and just as importantly includes everyone. Multiple skin tones per classroom is:

- Probably out of budget

- Even if it’s not, subject to bias

Why not use a skin tone that’s not likely to be identified with by anyone? If we taught kids to put condoms on a banana they can figure it out.

Making educational wieners racially diverse is a fool’s errand.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#32

Post by noxer »

okkdev wrote: post #14
noxer wrote: post #11

I dont think this website convinced me that we are all beautiful. Saw some things I definitely did not consider beautiful. Maybe instead of "forcing" everyone into accepting that everyone is beautiful we should just accept that taste is personal and there is nothing wrong with finding something/someone not beautiful.

Sure, but something you don't like someone else might like. Thus making everyone beautiful.

We do not apply this kind of logic anywhere else. Lets say for example plants that we eat because they taste good. It doesn't really matter if you can find someone who likes to eat birch wood and says it tastes good, to make the statement "birch wood is tasty" true.

Saying "everyone is beautiful" is like say "everyone smells good". Is simply not true and the rest is just a language trick. It does not mean the same as "everyone smells good to someone". Which would still be a assumption without any proof that is only probably true because of the sheer number of people that exist.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#33

Post by kadoban »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #31
kadoban wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A variety of human skin (and hair and etc) tones would seem appropriate. Is there something more to this question than it appear at first?

Well since the manufacturer is in the conversation: yes I’m coming from the perspective that an arbitrary color helps avoid racial stereotypes, and just as importantly includes everyone. Multiple skin tones per classroom is: - Probably out of budget - Even if it’s not, subject to bias Why not use a skin tone that’s not likely to be identified with by anyone? If we taught kids to put condoms on a banana they can figur…

I think I'm maybe not understanding what this is for. It's to show students varieties of anatomically correct bodies and genitals? But color and texture/material (skin, which itself has different varieties vs hair vs etc) is a fairly important part of that. I'd almost think pictures or videos would be better. I'm probably misunderstanding what the goal is though.

> Why not use a skin tone that’s not likely to be identified with by anyone? If we taught kids to put condoms on a banana they can figure it out.

> Making educational wieners racially diverse is a fool’s errand.

I mean maybe, but then why _not_ just use a banana? It just seems odd to go for extreme realism except for the color.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#34

Post by [deleted] »

kadoban wrote: post #33
eyelidlessness wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well since the manufacturer is in the conversation: yes I’m coming from the perspective that an arbitrary color helps avoid racial stereotypes, and just as importantly includes everyone. Multiple skin tones per classroom is: - Probably out of budget - Even if it’s not, subject to bias Why not use a skin tone that’s not likely to be identified with by anyone? If we taught kids to put condoms on a banana they can figur…

I think I'm maybe not understanding what this is for. It's to show students varieties of anatomically correct bodies and genitals? But color and texture/material (skin, which itself has different varieties vs hair vs etc) is a fairly important part of that. I'd almost think pictures or videos would be better. I'm probably misunderstanding what the goal is though. > Why not use a skin tone that’s not likely to be iden…

[deleted]

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#35

Post by mayhemchaos »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #30
mayhemchaos wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, yes, I tried a more useful link, but no one looked at it. :/

So you used a clickbait title instead to trick people into viewing it?

Pretty much. Anything with a clear title was ignored, so I wondered if something like this would work better. Much to my dismay, it did.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#36

Post by mayhemchaos »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #23
mayhemchaos wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good questions, but I have no answers now. The only vaguely scientific thing we accomplished was creating compound models that show the sexual arousal of a vulva. I was told that it "became puffy/engorged", but couldn't ever really see that in action. Until we made of model of a woman before arousal and just prior to orgasm. Our compound models are truly the most interesting ones: - https://wearebeautiful.info/model/…

You might want to read this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350174 Best of luck.

Yep, so true. Our assessment of the applicability of our project was:

Those who don't need it, love it. Those who need it the most, won't look at it.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#37

Post by DoreenMichele »

mayhemchaos wrote: post #36
DoreenMichele wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to read this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350174 Best of luck.

Yep, so true. Our assessment of the applicability of our project was: Those who don't need it, love it. Those who need it the most, won't look at it.

The comment was about titling on HN. Titles are always hard, they are harder still for controversial or sensitive subjects.

Life gets easier if you don't take that fact personally and just see it as a logistical issue.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#38

Post by darkcha0s »

crtasm wrote: post #15
darkcha0s wrote: post #9

Why are like 70% of the models vaginas?

Are they? I only looked at https://wearebeautiful.info/browse/by-part Also "If you're wondering why we have the collection of models we have, see our model diversity statement for more details. " https://wearebeautiful.info/docs/model-diversity

Just had a look here: https://wearebeautiful.info/browse/by-part
Post reply on HN