This is an interesting site but perhaps the title of the link should be updated? When I clicked on it I thought it would direct me to an article arguing against the existence of copyright law.
I dont think this website convinced me that we are all beautiful. Saw some things I definitely did not consider beautiful. Maybe instead of "forcing" everyone into accepting that everyone is beautiful we should just accept that taste is personal and there is nothing wrong with finding something/someone not beautiful.
We do not apply this kind of logic anywhere else. Lets say for example plants that we eat because they taste good. It doesn't really matter if you can find someone who likes to eat birch wood and says it tastes good, to make the statement "birch wood is tasty" true.
Saying "everyone is beautiful" is like say "everyone smells good". Is simply not true and the rest is just a language trick. It does not mean the same as "everyone smells good to someone". Which would still be a assumption without any proof that is only probably true because of the sheer number of people that exist.
There are definitely popular preferences. Unfortunately not everyone is born equal. Rejecting reality makes it harder to solve the problems created by it.
We create 3D models of human genitals with the aim to:
break taboos
educate at a global level
improve body self-image for all users
We aim to enable educators to do the same by making the 3D models freely available for viewing online and for downloading and printing under the CC0 license.
A 3D model is just a mesh of points in 3D space. These here provide only a shaded single color render to... illustrate this mesh. It can be rendered with any modern technique when used in conjunction with a rendering engine.
We really wanted to release the textures that go with the models in order to make them more realistic. However, that would likely put us into the pornography realm and make the site even harder to share with others. And also, printing these models with such color resolution just isn't possible yet -- we've got a long way to go in 3D printing for that to be workable.
I guess that depends on what the model is used for.
If you like a model that looks realistic but has no texture, then go for your favorite skin tone.
If you like something that is not to “scary”, then get something more playful and make it rainbow-colored, thermochromic or better: glow in the dark.
There is a reason why most sex toys (for women) are not flesh colored.
If you want to create an educational model for adults, textured would be nice.
Try the same colored model for sex ed in school and you will have very interesting conversations with concerned parents.
In that case, you might also be better off with a color gradient or an unusual color (orange, green, blue, UV active).
And that way, you elegantly avoid traps that involve racial stereotypes.
Try it on wearebeautiful.info, the render engine allows you to change the color of any model you pick.
Well since the manufacturer is in the conversation: yes I’m coming from the perspective that an arbitrary color helps avoid racial stereotypes, and just as importantly includes everyone. Multiple skin tones per classroom is:
- Probably out of budget
- Even if it’s not, subject to bias
Why not use a skin tone that’s not likely to be identified with by anyone? If we taught kids to put condoms on a banana they can figure it out.
Making educational wieners racially diverse is a fool’s errand.
I think I'm maybe not understanding what this is for. It's to show students varieties of anatomically correct bodies and genitals? But color and texture/material (skin, which itself has different varieties vs hair vs etc) is a fairly important part of that. I'd almost think pictures or videos would be better. I'm probably misunderstanding what the goal is though.
> Why not use a skin tone that’s not likely to be identified with by anyone? If we taught kids to put condoms on a banana they can figure it out.
> Making educational wieners racially diverse is a fool’s errand.
I mean maybe, but then why _not_ just use a banana? It just seems odd to go for extreme realism except for the color.
It's interesting and feels like a step in the right direction. I wonder about MRI or CT scans as an alternative to photogrammetry in order to more fully capture hidden details.
I'm also interested in simulation and movement. How SHOULD one capture the default shape and characteristics of a complicated soft structure in order to properly simulate it under gravity or other forces? Creating realistic stretching that takes into account the internal differences between ligaments and flesh for instance, could be an entire field of study.
I'm excited to see where this leads in the future.
Interesting thought.
But CTs are pretty hard to read.
The reasons why drawings or simplified models are used in sex ed, is that they can be understood easily.
An actual model derived from a CT scan usually needs some explanations and a certain base knowledge of the matter. Regular organs do not look as “nice” as they do in drawings.
But if you are interested in the shifting of the skin/genitals in different positions, then take a close look at the models and especially their “code” (the model names encode body alignment during the scan).
There is also a comparison of a flaccid and an erected penis.
Or different stages of a pregnancy.
And a vulva comparison that shows arousal and the “relaxed” state.
Good questions, but I have no answers now. The only vaguely scientific thing we accomplished was creating compound models that show the sexual arousal of a vulva. I was told that it "became puffy/engorged", but couldn't ever really see that in action. Until we made of model of a woman before arousal and just prior to orgasm.
Our compound models are truly the most interesting ones:
Sadly, this project doesn't have a future. This HN post has gathered the most interest in the project yet. A clickbait headline got people to look, nothing else. :(
pope_meat is right -- even in the age of unsolicited dick pics, mostly women were interested in participating in this project. Men were very hesitant. Also, more models of women than men worked out, since photogrammetry is very sensitive to movement. Any body parts further from the core where more subjected to movement from heartbeats and breaths. Vulvas are closer to the body and thus less affected.
Women have more need for information on our genitals. Our genitals are hidden from view and we get less natural exposure to what they look like, what's normal, how they compare to others, etc.
