- This topic is empty.
Nude photography
-
I’ve put this into General Chat so that we can all talk very freely
and without danger of being moderated for being off-topic.I’m pretty much against nude photography in the forum because I
think the boundaries of good taste would be overstepped too quickly.
I’m not against nude photography per se and I think, when it is done
well, it reaches art’s highest form.However, the rules on this site (in my view) are a bit arbitrary. Davis_S posted
a photo of a lady who appears to be nude, but isn’t. This is therefore within the rules.
Ifor posted a photo of a man who is clearly topless (and others have before). Is it
actually legal to say men can be shown topless and not women? I find it much easier
to look at a woman’s naked chest than GrahamB’s (please excuse me if I’ve got the wrong
person, but I seem to recall a candlelit tattoo-fest with a berserker’s bared chest).What if I posted a photo of a lady in a very brief bikini whose buttocks were visible?
(More cold water – that’s it, throw it all over me). Or worse – a man?I really think (and this is not a joke) that someone has to bite the bullet and re-write the
nudity rule with full reference to a medical textbook. Something along the lines of, “Nudity,
or the appearance of nudity, is acceptable provided the following body parts are not visible…..”I hope others will add their own opinions to this post.
I would say there is never a rule that is going to cover all situations – so trying to refine it might be fruitless. Websites have moderators – to allow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules to be applied and as it works for most judicial systems in the world, I think it should be good enough for a Fourm :) If something is borderline people should probably ask the opinion of a mod first and similarly if someone has a problem with a post it should be refered to a mod – that way nobody gets their nose bent publicly.
John.
I dont disagree with nude photography on this site. We have all other types on the site, why not have that too?? Its just as valid. I mean, I know you could say that it would be easy for a young person to access them or something but lets face it, im probably the youngest on this site at 18, and it doesnt bother me.
Its not like 7 or 8 year olds will be lookin up this site in the hope of finding some pics of “nakey women”.
If it was allowed, obviously the mods would have to excercise alot of good judgement.
But I have every faith in them so i would say just allow it.
I think you’ll find that with Nude images, they draw alot of attention for the wrong reasons. Alot of people that seek out these image cannot appreciate the technical or creative aspect of these images, they simply seek out these images for various other reasons. I would love to see the site be able to host art nude images, as we have a number of art nude photographers among us. However, doing this would give rise to the
a large amount of unwanted fad members joining, it would also instantaneously categorise the site as “adult” in nature. To my
knowledge, our youngest member is 13.. you can understand that if the disclaimer on joining up is changed to 18, technically they shouldn’t
be on the site.In addition, I look favorable on images that do leave it up to the imagination as to whether the model is nude or not. It is a gray area and unfortunately due to the nature of the topic someone has to decide.
j_machale says it perfectly…
I would say there is never a rule that is going to cover all situations – so trying to refine it might be fruitless. Websites have moderators – to allow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules to be applied and as it works for most judicial systems in the world, I think it should be good enough for a Fourm Smile If something is borderline people should probably ask the opinion of a mod first and similarly if someone has a problem with a post it should be refered to a mod – that way nobody gets their nose bent publicly.
Nude photography won’t be allowed on the site for the forseeable future.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of our arbiters of morals and decency,
I would like to see more of this sort of thing-Not the bad stuff,
or even the glamour stuff,
but the Art stuff,
the kind that Pete the Bloke puts at the peak of artistic endeavour-
as opposed to the kind that just gives him pique-I don’t think that anyone who is aware of the difference between those Twin Peaks
should have a problem identifying that type of image,
or have a problem putting it up here-
the rules are open to interpretation,
and Mark’s arbitration on the image that sparked this debate
should give some indication of what might be acceptable.As usual, common sense will prevail,
and anything that oversteps the mark (sorry Mark) will be taken down-Its good to have an inclusive site,
and I think the members’ collective judgement will prevail-
as it has done without a problem so far-We are on the internet,
and anyone who wants to find images like that will be clicking somewhere else-Even if there is the occasional Art shot here-
j
Edit- typo
Umm..not sure this will make sense…
One the one the most wondrous moments of my life was the privelege of the seeing the statue of David in Florence.
Art is art…trash is strash..
There is a huge difference and the moderators are qualified to distinguish.
Nice one jb7 :lol:
DenverDoll wrote:
One the one the most wondrous moments of my life was the privelege of the seeing the statue of David in Florence.
Notoriously under-endowed, so I understand.
Though at 17 feet tall, he’s probably packing a fair-sized lunchbox anyway.
I’m glad to see some well-thought out response to my post.
I’m afraid I’m on Mark’s side – we’re the spoilsports I suppose. I would urge Mark
to clarify things a bit further, even if j_machale’s post makes a very
fair point.I just like things to be black and white despite having an aversion to rules. Let’s say,
for example, that I believe a photo trangresses the rules: would you remove it just because
I say I’m offended?Not wanting to be crude – but in the interests of clarifying it (from what I can gather) – nude pictures are still a no go but implied nude pictures (ie picture of an unclothed model without actually showing nipples or pubic hair) seem to be fine.
I would also be on the side of this that thinks were all adults here (or should be) and what we can see or show shouldn’t be limited by whats suitable for children – this is the internet after all and we are not babysitters. If you want nude pictures you can find about 90 trillion on google in about 2 seconds (I counted). So I dont think this forum is going to become targeted by people purely looking for pictures of naked women. I think that a sub-forum restricted for members who have been here for say 6 months or so – and who also post regularly should suffice. Artistic nude is one area (of many) that I work in and it would be good to be able to post them for C & C from time to time it is the nude human form after all and not pornography.
Nude is essentially bare breasts, genitalia and naked bottoms.
Dave_S’s photograph cannot be classed as such as none of the above were on view.
It doesn’t matter what a person is wearing outside of the framed image.Not sure why this is such an issue to be honest as the rare time a post required moderating the person
involved had no issue with it. If members have issue with a post on the site and that it might be breaking a
rule then just drop me a PM.Thanks
Markgerardk wrote:
Not wanting to be crude – but in the interests of clarifying it (from what I can gather) – nude pictures are still a no go but implied nude pictures (ie an unclothed model without actually showing
nipples or pubic hair) seem to be fine.I would tend to agree with that.
If in doubt, simply PM me. As I said, its rare that it causes issue.
gerardk wrote:
Not wanting to be crude – but in the interests of clarifying it (from what I can gather) – nude pictures are still a no go but implied nude pictures (ie picture of an unclothed model without actually showing nipples or pubic hair) seem to be fine.
Absolutely agree.
gerardk wrote:
I would also be on the side of this that thinks were all adults here (or should be) and what we can see or show shouldn’t be limited by whats suitable for children – this is the internet after all and we are not babysitters.
Absolutely disagree, we are not all adults here and we will not be allowing the posting of nude images on the site just because it’s available everywhere else. Yes you will be limited to what is suitable for children. This site is for 13 years and older.
If I want to look at nude photographs, male or female, there are, as already mentioned, plenty of sites online to do it. If I want to post nude photographs, pornographic or artistic, there are also plenty of sites to do that on. I think it has been made clear that this site is NOT one of them. As far as I can see, there is no argument. Those are the rules as they stand. If it’s not to someone’s liking, well, find somewhere where it is.
Pretty simple in my view.
PeteTheBloke wrote:
I’ve put this into General Chat so that we can all talk very freely
Expresbro wrote:
As far as I can see, there is no argument. Those are the rules as they stand. If it’s not to someone’s liking, well, find somewhere where it is.
Pretty simple in my view.Not everyone thinks that if something isn’t just so well then they we should just give up somewhere else. It seems that the rules are evolving (as mentioned in this thread) and this process is bound to be a cause for discussion. Someone elsewhere mentioned earlier that this doesn’t crop up too often – I think the reason for this is more because everyone respects the rule rather than because everyone agrees with the rule.
Expresbro wrote:
If it’s not to someone’s liking, well, find somewhere where it is.
Not too difficult to translate that back into the Anglo-Saxon-
j
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
