File talk:Manual stimulation of erogenous areas.jpg

 

Circumstances

What were the circumstances that led to this picture being taken? --EloiseA (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Historycurious: It may actually be interesting to know more about that, because it's the only image uploaded by you. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@TwoWings: Circumstances as in how I came to take this picture of these two nude young women? It's a long-ish story, but if you insist. By the by,it seems to have gotten quite a reaction from some people.They seem to think they have to go on a moral crusade.--Historycurious (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@TwoWings: I'm sorry, I thought my edit was saved, and then I had trouble logging in as I couldn't remember my password, and my email one too.

Anyway, long story short: This picture was taken in November of 1969. It was part of a series of photographs which I took at the behest of a private collector who dabbled in painting and wanted to use the photos as models/inspiration, which explains the stark lighting and the near total absence of shadows on the girls' bodies. If memory serves me right said individual wanted to paint a modern version of Gustave Courbet's "Le Sommeil" (obviously with more being revealed), which is why I was hired and got the girls to pose. I took well over 50 photographs and made several sets of them, one of which I kept. This is the only picture I still have. I presume the other prints are still out there somewhere. I do hope this answers your query, if not, let me know!--Historycurious (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Image is disgusting.

This picture has no purpose. It is plainly and simply pornographic. It shouldn't be here, and is not educationally useful, since it only shows 2 women touching each other, one of whom has simply her legs apart. Dreadful.

--Vihet (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See COM:CENSORSHIP and COM:NUDE. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, so what does this image bring to wikimedia according to you??--Vihet (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The title explains the theme. And it's an illustration of lesbic sex. And it's the only file we've got to illustrate earlobe stimulation. Anyway, with the words you're using ("disgusting", "pornographic", "dreadful"), I wonder if you can understand that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And why is a photograph illustrating 2 women having sex with each other necessary? It's not useful, in my opinion.--Vihet (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, you think that sex is not useful as a whole and not an encyclopedic topic. If you think like that, just go elsewhere since Wikipedia and Commons are also dealing with subjects you dislike. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course sex is useful, but this image is pornographic! Explain to me how according to you an image of a naked young woman fingering another young woman's vagina is not porn! Or is this artistic for you somehow? If so, please explain.--Vihet (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment See above for an explanation, if you missed it. Tm (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That explains nothing at all. And yes, I have seen his/her so called "explanation" (edit) I've checked out TwoWIngs' profile. If he's so protective of this photo, why isn't it in his favorite pics section, hmm?.--Vihet (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to behave more as a troll than someone who'd be ready for an intelligent talk, so I won't comment nor answer anymore. Just go elsewhere if that disturbs you. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, where you actually state as to why you personally think that this photo of 2 naked lesbians should be in wikimedia, not just where you say Wikimedia is uncensored. Sex is useful, but I still can't see the usefulness of this particular image, and since you seem to be quite fond of it, I was wondering what your views are. That's all. And I apologize for my uncalled for uncouth remark towards you in my last comment. --Vihet (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Vihet, you seem to have something against this photograph. Also, I suggest you study it carefully, and its purpose and context might manifest itself to you. --Historycurious (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Biting category

I understand why it was added, but isn't it a bit vague?

--Historycurious (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Historycurious: I created it. I took Category:Sexual licking as a reference. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)