Forsén stated in the 2019 documentary film Losing Lena, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me.
From Wikipedia
She was a paid model, so I don't consider the usage unethical based on that. But I like this comment from a journal:
In today's age of high-resolution digital image technology, it seems difficult to argue that a 512 × 512 image produced with a 1970s-era analog scanner is the best we have to offer as an image quality test standard".
Lmao, they do have a point though!
In today’s age of high-resolution digital image technology, it seems difficult to argue that a 512 × 512 image produced with a 1970s-era analog scanner is the best we have to offer as an image quality test standard".
I mean, this puts into context that the standard probably should have been some kind of test card like this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips_circle_pattern
I don't know that she actually did. Most recent statement I can find from her is 2019, and she essentially says that she thinks it's time to retire the image.
She has since asked for the image to no longer be used, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let's commit to losing me."
Yeah, those woke culture warriors at the ... IEEE ... distracting us from ... Something... by asking academic researchers to ... Refrain from using a specific cropped pornographic image that the model has asked people to stop using.
Those bastards.
I'm referring to class warfare. It's a nice gesture but not worth the media throughfare, especially as she asked for it not to be used. You can just do it and not make it a big fuss. There are better problems to worry about. Hyping it feels perverse. It should be done simply because it's right and she wanted privacy. I'm aware this is a bit ironic, but I don't think it should be such a wild thing to show a bit of respect to what the affected parties want. I suppose posting rhe meme isn't helping but I can't resist a good Cena meme.
Edit: I suppose I'm trying to say that the fact that this is a notable change at all is an indication of a problem.
I mean, the IEEE didn't really make that big of a deal about it. An email to members informing them of an update to https://magazines.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/create-your-ieee-magazine-article/article-submission-requirements/ hardly feels like hype. I think it's about the minimal fuss you can make while still allowing people to know about the change.
I'm referring to this, media being the current main weapon of class warfare: https://www.google.com/search?q=lena+image+ieee&sca_esv=aefa6caa23033a76&sca_upv=1&biw=120&bih=234&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ADLYWIJxCNeqrAHv7S_puV7xJ63Oru1HtA%3A1714774414838&ei=jmE1ZvfoMtaWhbIP0P-VyAU&oq=lena+image+&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAaAhgDIgtsZW5hIGltYWdlICoCCAQyChAAGIAEGEMYigUyChAAGIAEGEMYigUyChAAGIAEGEMYigUyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEj-F1DIC1jIC3AAeACQAQCYAWmgAcgBqgEDMS4xuAEByAEA-AEBigIZbW9iaWxlLWd3cy13aXotc2VycC1tb2Rlc5gCAqAC2wGYAwCIBgGSBwMwLjKgB8EI&sclient=mobile-gws-serp
A ton of articles in the last month then nothing for literally years. This is a culture problem and the paparazzi not an act of respect. I mean there is also an argument for change to be celebrated, but there's better ways to do that. This could have just been a byline in submission guidelines but the press release has practical purposes for ongoing work.
I mean, I'd agree that it's not really too interesting of a thing to report on, but... It just doesn't seem weird to me that they didn't talk about something, and then after something happened with it they did for a minute, and then they stopped again. Nine articles from a month ago, when they updated the policy, and none since doesn't scream "a ton" or "culture war" to me.
And what is the act of class warfare being done here, in your view? What's the narrative or agenda being pushed?
Gutted, went to reply and the phone died in the middle of my novel so forgive me whole I consolidate tequila ramblings. Basically it's about the ratio that I see here; and this example is a kind of nicely packaged case study of larger trends. While this is progress and it's good but it also points towards other larger worse problems. The event itself is just noise. To begin with, the subject matter itself trends towards more well to do white collar people, as its obscure enough that you'd have to have the time and money to know about it back in the day to have any sort of nostalgia. That's the audience, older dissatisfied ususlly white men. The handful of initial articles that came before were sporadic and did not really cause waves to cause others to also write about it. It was only a cultural event when people were told they cannot continue to objectify this person and that is when the story trended. They did not care when people were writing that she had a problem with it. It shouldn't even matter why she said no, a no should have been enough. I don't work in this field, so why do I even need to hear about this. It is normal behaviour to respect privacy and people's wishes. Why is that what we talk about and not Lena herself as a person? Her objection has been commodified and her voice isn't the topic even after it was banned. Why does media only care when they can rustle some feathers? I mean the answer is obvious, and it's not necessarily always intentional, it's just a systemic problem of click farming and agitation in a bad way. Its addicting, keeps peoples attention. People are wonderfully complex, beautiful thoughtful creatures. That's our problem, we do care and we desperately want stability, it also makes us vulnerable. Pick something mildly controversial and safe and you can get those passive clicks. It's like pushing needles into those exposed to it, when this event is just a drop in the bucket that distracts from the people who own these institutions who demand this kind of engagement from these employees who probably didn't even write the article title. It's cheap labour, not investigative, and just serves to collect more capital. It's a bad, lazy feedback loop that benefits only the capital owners. Legitimate grievences that need support get drowned by these things and I'm sure that there is more to this person than a playboy image. It's absurd it's even a thing at all. It's hard to make a living biting the hand that feeds even though we all know this is all pretty bullshit. We'd do far better listening to people when they speak, rather than just reacting to them saying no. It's the reaction that is curious, not the event itself, and reactionary behaviour is almost built into media at this point through finance.
Edit, oh yes, here's a cool site that you can see comments across various platforms about an article. Useful for vibe checks. https://kulli.sh/
See below. We don't disagree. It's a good move, the hype is the problem. It feels wrong. It should have been removed as it was the right thing to do. I've seen a lot of stuff about this recently from people who feel the need to chirp about a woman that wanted privacy.
Naw, they're excellent for determining which kind of people are controlling manipulative monsters!
Forsén redid the shoot some 50 years later, producing a (worksafe) image of a grandmotherly woman wearing a hat and smiling. Perhaps using this updated image would be a reasonable compromise?
They tested positive for sex, unlike you, probably.
Real answer: Sex positivity is an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, encouraging sexual pleasure and experimentation.
So why is the consensual photography of a nude model for sexual enjoyment not considered a sex-positive act?
It's corporate speak for "It's no longer hip and cool to objectify women"... or wait.. I guess it is supposed to be "It's not mysogny if the women like it".. but who knows..