There's quite an interesting debate tucked away in last week's Position of the Week blog about the change to how the people are represented in the accompanying illustration. Some people seem to really need at least one of them to have long hair and some tits drawn on:
https://www.lovehoney.co.uk/blog/2020/06/28/position-of-the-week-pleasure-slide/#comments
I thought I'd pop a thread on here and open out the discussion. ππ So, what's your take on them?
I feel saddened that such an inclusive and respectful community would take offence at an outline depicting a non-stereotypical couple. The appearance of the figures doesn't detract at all from the practicality of the sex position. I personally would LOVE to see even more diversity in the models, using plus sized figures or disabled ones. Inclusivity should never be threatened by mob mentality. Live and Let Live is my mantra, 2 flat chested people having sex doesn't affect me in any way so why should I take offense to it? Not everyone looks the same in the real world why is it such a shock to see diversity online too?
Ignore the sad minority. The internet gives way too much credence to the views of a minority of bigoted trolls.
I donβt see the problem itβs two images showing off positions not to intimate If you are offended by this then thatβs pretty sad. Also Lovehoney is a platform for all sexualityβs and for individuals to experiment and experience new things I donβt see why it even needs to be a discussion point.
I'm not sure they're all homophobic as such, I thought the gist was that they couldn't engage with the picture as easily as they couldn't see themselves in it?
That just shows a severe lack of imagination.
What more do they want? A diagram? Oh wait...
Looks like I'll be playing devil's avocado for this one. ππ₯
One of the comments asked if there'd be a way to select which set of pictures you get emailed so you could tailor them to your preference. Would you view that as negatively?
It would be nice to be sent personalised pictures if they had a practical use. MM FM or FF sex positions will obviously differ so that could be a basis for offering different diagrams. Then you could have adapted positions for plus sized people or disabled people with accompanying pictures. If it's just for aesthetics I really don't see the issue. It is a diagram at the end of the day.Ian Chimp wrote:
Looks like I'll be playing devil's avocado for this one. ππ₯
One of the comments asked if there'd be a way to select which set of pictures you get emailed so you could tailor them to your preference. Would you view that as negatively?
I wouldn't view it negatively i'd just ignore the ones that didn't suit me.
I do agree maybe could be made a bit more obvious but a lot of the diagrams sent through are self explanatory and if they have a problem maybe be clear what it is rather than just moaning about sort hair then Lovehoney could take it as positive criticism and it not get took the wrong way
WillC wrote:
I wouldn't view it negatively i'd just ignore the ones that didn't suit me.
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you'd view any combination of the sex positions negatively. π I meant, would you view the people who only selected 'hetero' as negatively. Marketing is all about engaging the potential customer, so if people are saying that they're not as engaged with the new version how do you balance that with a need to show more inclusivity?
I like VanillaWithSprinkles idea (welcome back, by the way ππ) of having lots of different ones. Sure, drawing them up would be more work, but probably not as much as you think. Once they'd done them they could even re-use them in some more diverse sex position card decks. π I'm trying to think what categories/combinations they'd need to do. π€
Sorry, i meant that using gender neutral drawings doesn't bother me, it must be hard to please everyone, probably impossible. So gender neutral drawings are probably the best option. It can't be that much of an imagination stretch to work out which position would suit which gender.
Hi hi! Hope you're well π glad to see some old faces on here! I totally agree, a little bit of extra effort now could turn into something really cool in the long run.Ian Chimp wrote:
WillC wrote:
I wouldn't view it negatively i'd just ignore the ones that didn't suit me.
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you'd view any combination of the sex positions negatively. π I meant, would you view the people who only selected 'hetero' as negatively. Marketing is all about engaging the potential customer, so if people are saying that they're not as engaged with the new version how do you balance that with a need to show more inclusivity?
I like VanillaWithSprinkles idea (welcome back, by the way ππ) of having lots of different ones. Sure, drawing them up would be more work, but probably not as much as you think. Once they'd done them they could even re-use them in some more diverse sex position card decks. π I'm trying to think what categories/combinations they'd need to do. π€
The frustrating thing is that the text is written referring to he and she. Then non-hetero finally gets a mention in the last paragraph. The people complaining can't even seem to acknowledge that the majority of content is written in a way that seems to show hetero relationships as the default. Honestly, it saddens me.
Π½ΠΈΠ½Π°nin wrote:
The frustrating thing is that the text is written referring to he and she. Then non-hetero finally gets a mention in the last paragraph. The people complaining can't even seem to acknowledge that the majority of content is written in a way that seems to show hetero relationships as the default. Honestly, it saddens me.
If there were different pages for each combo they could all have a dedicated blurb. Tall/short, large/petit(e), old/young? Extend it out to multiple partners even. Maybe include some (light?) bondage ones?
I'm really warming to the idea of a Lovehoney Positionopedia. π
Way to over complicate the uncomplicated! π
I dont care who is depecited, I just wonder if my knees are up to it.
π my thoughts exactly! At my age, i am grateful i am breathing still!
I'll take that as a +2 for a POTW for older participants. π