File talk:Mamintb.PNG

message: I just love Wikipedia. No really, it's an example I can give to even the most thickheaded, that argumentum ad populum actually IS a logical fallacy. This world is going to shit and this website is a shining reminder. Oh and, I love the lipstick... EndDemocracy - date: a little bit closer to the end, 2008.
Top notch. Wikipedia is full of some stirling work, one just has to look hard enough... HawkerTyphoon 14:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: Can we please decide if the pornographic look into the camera should stay or not? Yes for yes, No for No. After five days, the side with the most users gets their wish. Savvy? --DeadGuy 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If not a vagina (on a page about vaginas) then what? Adsims2001 07:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It wasn't suggested to remove the head, but rather to redirect the eyes towards the left--where her partner is. Your comment is ironic because leaving the eyes looking at the observer, rather than her partner makes her a sexual object for the voyeur. If you want her to be an "active participant" perhaps she should be interacting with her partner, rather than the viewer. Jeez. 65.183.135.231 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Porno Look or Not?

message: I'd suggest altering this image, as several things about it seem offensive and unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. The makeup and earrings on the female have nothing to do with depiction of the position, and give the image a pornographic (even chauvinist) quality. What appears to be semen on the woman also has no place in a diagram. Could the image be altered to be a bit more academic?--70.227.157.118 03:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive Image?

message: I notice the original image has been recently switched from a European to Afro-Caribbean and back again. I have made it a racially neutral so it's now a mix of all ethnic colours. Now it's neither European, Afro-Caribbean, Oriental, Asian, Arab, Jewish, Latino, Native American, Inuit,  Turk or Pacific Islander. See- "Mamintbl.png". End of race crisis! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobie Alice Flinker (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your effort, but I think that the image is more difficult to see now.  The similarity between the color  you gave to the penis and the color you gave to the nipples is confusing.  I have never seen anyone with that combination of skin and hair color.  And all the colors are so similar that there is not enough contrast to easily see what is going on in the picture.  I don't really understand why we need to obliterate the fact that the woman in the image is white.  I have made the man in the image black, which also improves the contrast between the two people depicted in the drawing.  Joie de Vivre 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that it looks even less realistic now than it did before.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Up-date.

message: There is no need for colour and the "pearl necklace" is excessive and does not add to the understanding of the article. Neitherday 21:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not censored is not the same as having sexualized content for the sake of having sexualized content. Why exactly does the "pearl necklace" need to be included, especially given that it is not integral to or even always part of the act? How do the skin tones help the image? I would argue that greyscale improves the image by making it more racially neutral.  Neitherday 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I have not suggested the article should have no illustration. You have not answered either of my questions. Why exactly does the "pearl necklace" need to be included, especially given that it is not integral to or even always part of the act? How do the skin tones help the image? Neitherday 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greyscale

message: I tried to revert to an earlier version and now the image is stretched out.  I tried to fix it by reverting to another version, which failed.  Please fix the image if you know how.  Joie de Vivre T 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert failed

message: I can always count on Wikipedia to provide me with nut-busting porn under the pretext of "informing" the people!" All about the context," right? I love it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.221.142 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed!  Awesome. --68.50.223.58 (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Wikipedia! 

message: Is it just me, or is the woman supposed to be Kirstie Alley? Is this intentional? Does this contribute to what is otherwise a well-written, scholarly article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.145.79 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirstie Alley? 

message: It appears to me that this image is highly dehumanizing the male that is depicted. Above, the argument was made that the image should not be cropped, because the removal of the woman's head would dehumanize her, leaving her as nothing more than a sex toy. But what about the male figure depicted? His only visible parts are his genitalia, he might as well be replaced by a dildo or another sex toy. It seems only fair to include more of his body within the frame, so he too may be seen as an active participant in the act.  I favor finding a more complete "Kama Sutra" style image to use in this article. 71.240.248.72 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. And as I noted above, why is the woman looking at the viewer, rather than her partner? 65.183.135.231 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Dehumanizing to the Man 

message: In the (unlikely) event I give another Wikipedia speech, you can be sure this discussion is going in there. Thanks, people. --Jscott (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurrah