In the commercial context of movies and advertising, yes?
Particularly where depictions of non-white women and "degenerate" lesbians are concerned, depictions of female sexuality are almost always exploitative.
Precisely how do you define "exploitative?" In the commercial context of movies and advertising, every depiction of anything is "exploitative," in that it is leveraging the depiction to make money for the movie financiers or advertisers.
I have a hard time getting on board with that paper.
> The paradox of phallocentrism in all its manifestations is that it depends on the image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to its world. An idea of woman stands as lynch pin to the system: it is her lack that produces the phallus as a symbolic presence, it is her desire too make good the lack that the phallus signifies.
This would be an interesting discussion, but I don't think this article, or HN, are the right place. In short, the paper boils down to "sex sells" but wraps it in so much linguistic and semantic psychoanalytic sophistry that it's barely intelligible, and hardly actionable. Psychoanalysis is on very unstable foundations (see Popper's critiques), and this attempts to build on that, which doesn't compel belief, at least with me.
Not sure why you got downvoted. The researchers state:
“If we buy a sofa from major furniture company, it’s tested for harmful emissions before being put on sale. However, when we sit on the sofa, we naturally transform some of these emissions because of the oxidation field we generate,” said lead author Jonathan Williams, who heads the study of organic reactive species at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. “This can create many additional compounds in our breathing zone whose properties are not well known or studied. Interestingly, body lotion and perfume both seem to dampen down this effect.”
Which, if you're worried about the effects of unstudied compounds, lotion will help protect you against.
That’s like saying diarrhea will protect you against ingesting unknown poisons. Disrupting natural processes rarely comes without unintended side effects.
Sure, but it depends on what you consider to be "natural processes," and what you don't. The oxidation of sitting on a plastic^W vegan leather couch is not a "natural" process, but sitting on wood probably is. It's also not "natural" to be closed up with the results of that oxidation for most of the day, as most of our evolution happened with plenty of access to fresh air. We definitely have evidence that people were using oils and lotions for much longer than we've had modern synthetic materials or "air-tight" building methods.
The science is definitely still out, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that inhibiting this reaction might be beneficial.
Oh god, the GDE program. That title used to mean something, i.e. this person is a real expert in the topic.
Now it's just thrown to anyone who's willing enough to spam linkedin/twitter with Google bullshit and suck-up to the GDE community. Think everyone in the extended Google community got quite annoyed with the sudden rise in number of GDE's for blatantly stupid things.
This pops up especially if you're organising a conference in a Google-adjacent space, as you will get dozens of GDE's applying with talks that are pretty much a Google Codelab for a topic, without any real insights or knowledge shared, just a "lets go through tutorial together to show you this obscure google feature". And while there are a lot of good GDE's, in the last 5-6 years there has been such an influx of shitty ones that the program lost it's meaning and is being actively avoided.
