I've been acknowledging your point of view, and now you finally acknowledge my perspective, instead of continuously ignoring it. Thank you.
> Did you notice that you just included the definition of male gaze from the person who coined the term, and it is the definition that I've been using?
Yes, you are using that definition, that doesn't mean everyone agrees of your interpretation as defined in the articles I linked. Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification. Why is the website not subject to criticism again, because you view that is no context?
> Where did I claim they have no motive?
You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious. First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective. Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women. When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one, ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense. And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said.
> And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion.
Why is that a terrible conclusion? You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought. Why? Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good? That sounds pretty sexist to me.