[johnisgood]

> This logo has nothing to do with Linux, nor with kissing

And it does not have to! Look at the logo of other distributions, what do they have to do with Linux, other than being the logo of a Linux distribution? Sigh.

> It's only about transporting and reinforcing the idea that one of the main roles of women in society is to be something pretty for men to look at.

No, this is only what YOU BELIEVE it means. I did not think about that at all, it is just your own interpretation (that may be shared with other people). You see what you want to see, it does not make it so.

[tom_mellior]

> Look at the logo of other distributions, what do they have to do with Linux, other than being the logo of a Linux distribution?

They all have to do with the name of the distribution: Red Hat has a red hat, Alpine has the Alps, Ubuntu (a term having to do with solidarity) has people holding hands.

Kiss doesn't have a logo that shows kissing or lips. It has disembodied boobs.

Again: If Kiss had a stove as its logo, or diapers, or a half empty box of chocolates, someone would post here "that's a strange logo for something called Kiss", and you would probably more likely upvote them than bother to argue against them. Only sexualized women are always considered appropriate by some people, completely without any context.

[johnisgood]

Sure, you brought up a few Linux distributions whose logo is related to the name itself. I am pretty sure there are A LOT that do not have a logo related to the name. Then again, why does it even matter?

Plus, KISS is an abbreviation, it does not refer to the word "kiss".

> someone would post here "that's a strange logo", and you would probably more likely upvote them than bother to argue against them.

No, I would just ignore them, and I am not interested in arguing about taste either.

[tom_mellior]

You would ignore any other weird logo. Yet you feel conpelled to defend this one. You are making my point for me: Objectification of women has a special protected status in society.

[johnisgood]

No, I said I would ignore people saying "that's a strange logo", there is not much you can respond to it. You might ask why, but I am not interested. This conversation, is a tad different, do not you think? If you do not, may I suggest you read it again from top to bottom?

> You are making my point for me: Objectification of women has a special protected status in society.

Holy shit... OK. I hope you do realize that you came to this conclusion by a false assumption, see above. I am only reacting to your statements, if defending it is a side-effect, so be it, I do not give a damn. But you thinking that it has to do with "objectification of women" is quite a tell of YOUR BELIEFS, not mine. It is what you see, it is your interpretation, it has nothing to do with me. I will not respond to any of your future comments.