OK, folks, your wisdom is needed.
I got an email from Sheril Kirshenbaum asking me to promote a blog post in which she asks for pictures that might be used to illustrate her upcoming book on kissing. I had planned to help her out, and in fact, here I am doing that right now: Please look at this post and consider sending Sheril some pics. Be nice about it. No porn please.
(cc me anything you are not sure of and I’ll tell you if it is porn or not.)
Now, DrugMonkey has chimed in and made an interesting comment that I think should be taken into consideration (by Sheril). He points out, in this post, that kissy-kissy pics of cutsie animals is scientifically inaccurate (because by and large animals don’t ‘kiss’) and it just perpetuates the human-like cutosity of these animals, lighting a fire under the animal liberation and rights people who want to go and blow up animal research scientists (or support those who do).
I would add to this conundrum that animal conservations benefits, for better or worse, with cutsy pictures, though not necessarily cutesy kissy-kissy pictures.
Which means, that this all comes down to a matter of Framing Conflict (FC) between animal-based research interests and conservation interests.
In my opinion, DrugMonkey may be right in that it would be inappropriate for Sheril to use kissy-kissy bears or doggie in her book. I would add that such photos would be appropriate if she is using them to illustrate the fact that humans impart our own attributes on other animals, incorrectly and often inappropriately, and that kissing is one area we do that often.
One mammal’s kiss is another mammal’s slobbering on the flesh before chewing on it, I always say.
What do you think?