Board index PBase Feature Requests Please remove nudes in Popular Gallaries Thumbnails

Feature Requests

Please remove nudes in Popular Gallaries Thumbnails

Request changes or modifications.
srijith
Moderator
 
Posts: 2321
Location: Amsterdam


Post Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:36 pm


andrys wrote:And I mean the type even srijith found truly quite pure-porn in nature.


I am not sure if I should be proud or unhappy with my name being mentioned in such a context :D

Either way, my stand is that the present way that PBase handles the situation, yanking the galleries off the the popular listing or deleting them, is just wrong. A rating system may work but the crucial question would be - what should be the default setting for such a viewing filter for both users and non-users? If "do not show" is the default state, especially for a non-user, you are effectively yanking the images again! But then if the setting is "show", it does not really help PBase's effort to make their front page "clean".

andrys
 
Posts: 2701


Post Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:27 pm


hmetal wrote:
andrys wrote:...All the shots of a woman showing her slit, through 'artistic' stair
grills..


Here we have the crux of the problem. You obviously find the female form to be an ugly thing.


OH, go get a rational life that accepts that other people exist! Your
standards are NOT the ONLY standards on this earth. Other people live
on it too.

I hardly find the female form ugly since I have one and
think it fine, in its place and where others have a right to
see or not see it in its barest mode w/o being surprised.

I am more offended by your terminology for the female form than I have ever been by seeing nudes and porn.

Just how willingly dumb are you? It's not terminology for the
female form but for the opening to the vagina that is very
much like a slit or, if loose, a hole. These are crude terms to show
you how crude it is it to some to just show these aspects of women
as if this is all that women are. As for photos that actually are
appreciations of the female or male form, I am for it, but if they're of
nudes, many will not want to have them pop up without warning
and those people are as important as you, though you may not think so.

So we have been discussing filters and alternate popular galleries
so we can make both groups happy or happier.

Try to get some class and use proper terminology for the female form. Go ahead, you might just find you like it. You might sound like you have some class too.


Not if 'class' means the idiocy you spout here.
Last edited by andrys on Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.

andrys
 
Posts: 2701


Post Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:33 pm


bobfloyd wrote:
Andrys wrote: Could it be any easier? They get one opportunity to 'forget' and after that their galleries are not available until they show they can 'remember' to put them in the place for that (easily findable via pbase's non-filtered option when/if they make one).


Maybe I am just stupid but I read here sounds more like something required rather than something that is optional.


Well, if you've read the many recent threads on this, you'd see
that the pbase TOS already 'requires' no pornography in the
popular galleries. And we have been discussing a way to
HAVE these galleries but keep them away from those who would
rather not see them, especially by surprise. Again, it's a
standard that pbase has announced and follows even if they
haven't found a way to handle the pros and cons of it yet.

Maybe you should complain to them that they are required by
you to show any and all pornography whenever you want.

Others had asked what would be done if people didn't
self-moderate. THAT would be ONE way to handle it.

bobfloyd
 
Posts: 394


Post Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:41 am


See Andrys, this is part of the issue I am really driving at. I never said pornography, I said nudity. These two things are very different in my world but they appear to not be so different for many Americans. I am trying to understand why that is and you are avoiding it. So is trinko. Why does any nudity equal pornography for so many in this country but not in the rest of the world?

What I just read in your reply said to me that you could not defend your position any longer against the term nudity so you up the stakes by using a word you know I probably will not or cannot defend...pornography.

Requiring no "pornography" in the popular galleries is great but totally useless unless you define what "pornography" is. The real issue is that no definition of pornography has been given. Of course, I understand that we are all not going to agree on what it is or is not. To me, the line is generally somewhere between Playboy and Penthouse, although recently Playboy has been getting closer and closer to that line. To the gentleman who started this thread (and you as well, I suspect) the line is well short of Playboy. I have run across some galleries that I consider over the line as I see it.

I would argue that not all nudity is pornography and I would hold up the works of the masters in both painting and sculpture as examples. So far no one but Ray has commented on my questions about how you regard those and I think we all know which side of this he is on.

I have no axe to grind here. If any of you have looked at my galleries you know that I have nothing there that is of issue to any of you. At least, I don't know it if I do. I also have no plans to post anything here (or anywhere else, for that matter) that would fall under any censorship, optional or otherwise.

I am simply looking for answers, not trying to change the TOS here at Pbase. I signed them and I live by them but I do reserve the right to point out when they damned ambiguous.

hmetal
 
Posts: 246


Post Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:27 am


andrys wrote:
hmetal wrote:Here we have the crux of the problem. You obviously find the female form to be an ugly thing.


OH, go get a rational life that accepts that other people exist! Your
standards are NOT the ONLY standards on this earth. Other people live
on it too.


And I say the same to you. "Your standards are NOT the ONLY standards on this earth."

Which in turn means that those of us who WANT to upload, see and otherwise allow nudity in popular galleries here on PBase should have equality where images are concerned.

I hardly find the female form ugly since I have one and
think it fine, in its place and where others have a right to
see or not see it in its barest mode w/o being surprised.


Welcome then, 'me lady. I agree about the surprise bit but not at the expense of us art/nude/glamour/other forms of nude images being banned from popular galleries. Think how great our PBase world will become once the admins and coders implement the content rating and filtering system they have planned.

I am more offended by your terminology for the female form than I have ever been by seeing nudes and porn.

Just how willingly dumb are you? It's not terminology for the
female form but for the opening to the vagina that is very
much like a slit or, if loose, a hole. These are crude terms to show
you how crude it is it to some to just show these aspects of women
as if this is all that women are.


I knew exactly what you meant by a "slit," and I still have no use for the term nor anyone who uses it. It is, as you said, crude and you got just the response you expected and deserved.

Anyone who thinks that *most* (yes, I know there are pigs out there who see it otherwise which is why I say most) nude photographers think women are just objects obviously doesn't understand the genre or is equally as narrow minded as those who truly objectify women themselves.

In my case, I love women and I love to see y'all happy. My wife enjoys our photo sessions and never objects to her image being posted. I have also photographed other women who enjoy the freedom of nudity and I think they would also object to someone putting words into their mouths about being "objectified," when they are not at all.

So we have been discussing filters and alternate popular galleries
so we can make both groups happy or happier.


I can't wait!

Try to get some class and use proper terminology for the female form. Go ahead, you might just find you like it. You might sound like you have some class too.


Not if 'class' means the idiocy you spout here.


It is not "idiocy" to want to please as many people as possible. It is not "idiocy" for me to want the same permissions (someone previously pointed out that it is not a "right") as anyone else who uploads images of their cats, squirrels, dogs, cats, kids games, etc.

We pay to have our images here and we should all have the same allowances regardless of the content.

The choice of what the viewer sees should be that of the viewer, not the gallery owner. With the content system heavily discussed here and noted as "planned" by Emily, we will all have exactly that. Those who don't adibe by the "rules" should be banned from Popular photos and galleries. At least with the tagging system, those of us who can follow rules, will be able to upload our nudes and glamour and those who want to see them in Popular photos/galleries (and elsewhere) will have that choice.
Ray A. Akey
http://luminescentmemories.com - Luminescent Memories Photography
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hmetal - My Flickr
http://www.pbase.com/hmetal/pad - My PAD
http://codemain.com - A small portfolio

andrys
 
Posts: 2701


Post Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:23 pm


bobfloyd wrote:See Andrys, this is part of the issue I am really driving at. I never said pornography, I said nudity. These two things are very different in my world but they appear to not be so different for many Americans. I am trying to understand why that is and you are avoiding it. So is trinko. Why does any nudity equal pornography for so many in this country but not in the rest of the world?

What I just read in your reply said to me that you could not defend your position any longer against the term nudity


Do you always put words in other people's mouths to
help your own arguments?

SOME will not want nudity in galleries to be shown in
easy pop-up for everyone galleries. They've a right to that
on pbase if mgmt finds the nudity shown to be objectionable.
SLUG decides when nudity is over the bounds.

Some will not want nudity at all. I think Emily had
a nude in hers, which was certainly not pornographic,
but she decided it wouldn't be showing up in popular
galleries. That will indicate something on management's
part. And you'll have to deal with them.

I have nudity in mine even if only statues (which were
objected to) but if the TOS were against it, I would
just put that into separate galleries so it wouldn't affect
my galleries of other things. I DO have my own webpage
where I can put things that might not fit here, also.

so you up the stakes by using a word you know I probably will not or cannot defend...pornography.


No, if you were paying attention people have been
pointing to galleries that show interaction between
two people and to galleries of women where the attention
is to the exposure to their vaginas mainly for, it would
seem, more prurient interests. That 'verges' on porn
for some - even Srijith, who is adamantly opposed to
censorship nevertheless, unless pbase is more clear
on what it is they don't want in their popular galleries.

And why can't you defend pornography? It's
"beautiful" to many and sought after by many.

Requiring no "pornography" in the popular galleries is great but totally useless unless you define what "pornography" is. The real issue is that no definition of pornography has been given.


We all agree on that. I think that if you're the owner
and are actually paying the humongous bandwidth
associated with salivating customers for that genre,
you will see quickly what seems pornographic (arousing)
to many individuals.

$23/yr will not do for the bandwidth associated with
that subject matter because it's of huge interest to a
set of viewers.

Of course, I understand that we are all not going to agree on what it is or is not. To me, the line is generally somewhere between Playboy and Penthouse, although recently Playboy has been getting closer and closer to that line.

Because it pays. They were losing to the competition.
Guys want to see 'the real thing.' It's all relative though,
as to how much money one wants to make.

To the gentleman who started this thread (and you as well, I suspect) the line is well short of Playboy. I have run across some galleries that I consider over the line as I see it.


It's a very tough subject.

I would argue that not all nudity is pornography and I would hold up the works of the masters in both painting and sculpture as examples. So far no one but Ray has commented on my questions about how you regard those and I think we all know which side of this he is on.


Well, in this very thread, I've pointed to mine which was a problem
for someone, as it disappeared from Search area entirely (the whole
gallery) for about 10 days.

Not one male responded to my question about how they
responded to male nudity if it were often seen here or
in an entire gallery and in populars area, though they
are normally quite vociferous about the subject when
female nudity was involved.

I am simply looking for answers, not trying to change the TOS here at Pbase. I signed them and I live by them but I do reserve the right to point out when they damned ambiguous.


Sure. I did answer why most were Americans who objected,
since the photobase is in America and the majority of forumners
speaking up seem to be American in location.

andrys
 
Posts: 2701


Post Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:46 pm


hmetal wrote:And I say the same to you. "Your standards are NOT the ONLY standards on this earth."


That's obvious. But I'm not here insisting the management do
this or do that. We're trying to find solutions for both.

Which in turn means that those of us who WANT to upload, see and otherwise allow nudity in popular galleries here on PBase should have equality where images are concerned.


Unless the owners, who are paying for the bandwidth associated
with both nudity and more active multi-partner activity decide
that's not what they want in the popular galleries.

The reason most won't have their own website for that is that
the price is enormous due to traffic ("popularity") and bandwidth
for this subject matter. SLUG would have to pay, too. I'm sure
they have a traffic meter and then they look at the gallery,
which is why the handling of TOS conditions seems hit and miss.

But it's not you who decides for everyone else. It's the
owners who pay for it. $23/yr won't do it.

Censorship is when something isn't allowed expression
at all. Popular Galleries are more like a privilege rather
than a right, to have them 'featured.'

Andrys wrote: I hardly find the female form ugly since I have one and
think it fine, in its place and where others have a right to
see or not see it in its barest mode w/o being surprised.


Welcome then, 'me lady. I agree about the surprise bit but not at the expense of us art/nude/glamour/other forms of nude images being banned from popular galleries. Think how great our PBase world will become once the admins and coders implement the content rating and filtering system they have planned.


Very much agreed. And now it's the implementation of
the plan that is of much interest.

hmetal wrote:I am more offended by your terminology for the female form than I have ever been by seeing nudes and porn.
Andrys wrote:Just how willingly dumb are you? It's not terminology for the female form but for the opening to the vagina that is very
much like a slit or, if loose, a hole. These are crude terms to show
you how crude it is it to some to just show these aspects of women
as if this is all that women are.


I knew exactly what you meant by a "slit," and I still have no use for the term nor anyone who uses it. It is, as you said, crude and you got just the response you expected and deserved.


Interesting how you describe your own words! :-)
Yes, it deserved exactly what others feel about photos
of a type that are meant to view women ONLY as objects
of sexual gratification, rather than as forms of beauty.

Focusing only on sexual 'parts' is generally seen as
crude, in real life, and there are men who do even say
they are just looking for 'holes' and don't care what the
women look like. This would, in fact, make up a
considerable portion of pornography viewers. It could be
that Slug didn't make a photography base that specialized
in that or was known -for- that.

Anyone who thinks that *most* (yes, I know there are pigs out there who see it otherwise which is why I say most) nude photographers think women are just objects obviously doesn't understand the genre or is equally as narrow minded as those who truly objectify women themselves.

I don't think anyone here has said that.

But it's obvious with some galleries people have pointed us
to, that the models are advertising mainly their sexual parts
rather than the whole package. You may avoid the truth of this,
but some galleries are focused on getting men aroused and those are
going to be 'popular' -- but is that what PBase or Slug wants in
its popular galleries and does a member have the right to
insist they must have that in popular galleries.

In my case, I love women and I love to see y'all happy. My wife enjoys our photo sessions and never objects to her image being posted. I have also photographed other women who enjoy the freedom of nudity and I think they would also object to someone putting words into their mouths about being "objectified," when they are not at all.


"At all" is something you can't know. You do know that if it's
all you have, men will flock there, especially if they find it
arousing. The problem for some is, so will young boys, and then
will Pbase/Slug really want this, because pbase is already
being blocked for that, which means whole sets of people with
certain large ISPs can't see ANY of pbase, which is even more
blocking.

With the separate area and separate popular galleries (voluntarily
seen) that prob is solved. It'll be interesting to see which will or
would wind up most popular in this area. Will soft-core or mainly
nudes wind up in the dust? I think they will probably just disallow
pure pornography, once they have a good description of what that
is, for them. And then the rest will have a chance.

hmetal wrote:
Andrys wrote:So we have been discussing filters and alternate popular galleries so we can make both groups happy or happier.


I can't wait!


It is not "idiocy" to want to please as many people as possible. It is not "idiocy" for me to want the same permissions (someone previously pointed out that it is not a "right") as anyone else who uploads images of their cats, squirrels, dogs, cats, kids games, etc.


No, you were demeaning those who did not want to see
these by surprise. You were railing at them. But most have
been talking about separate areas, and you just reacted
too quickly.


We pay to have our images here and we should all have the same allowances regardless of the content.


Tell that to the owner who pays for the traffic.

The choice of what the viewer sees should be that of the viewer, not the gallery owner.


Even in real life galleries, they choose the artist shown.
And that is based on what they have to show. Not everyone
has the right to be shown, even.

With the content system heavily discussed here and noted as "planned" by Emily, we will all have exactly that. Those who don't adibe by the "rules" should be banned from Popular photos and galleries. At least with the tagging system, those of us who can follow rules, will be able to upload our nudes and glamour and those who want to see them in Popular photos/galleries (and elsewhere) will have that choice.


Yes, the ideal plan is to have one "popular galleries" -
filtered, with user deciding on filtering. The probs will exist
when someone leaves their unfiltered set 'on' and someone else
comes to use the computer (we were talking offices and homes
but at home, at least, people should be responsible for what
they themselves do).

But the main problem comes with blocking by many large
ISPs for porn content. The availability of that in popular galleries
will likely still be a problem and cause blocking of all of pbase,
which is an even bigger problem.

So I'm for two sets of popular galleries. The unfiltered ones
and the default filtered one, mainly so that people won't be
blocked from seeing everyday photo images until they choose
the option themselves.

The added problem is that once they identify the traffic
associated with the unfiltered galleries, they will clearly be
more expensive, and uploaders may have to pay more to
share those photos. So, this is a HUGE prob for pbase.

- A

trinko
 
Posts: 816

Re: Please remove nudes in Popular Gallaries Thumbnails

Post Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:27 am


How dare you say what we have to see in popular galleries? Why is your desire to show nudes superior to my desire to not be surprised by them? I think you fail to see the symetry in our positions. but in any case you should have noted that i agree with your solution. self labeling and self thresholding. seems like we agree on a reasonable compramize. now all we need is for PBase to give us the tools.

hmetal wrote:
trinko wrote:While i don't approve of nude photos in general i realize that nothing I say will cause PBase to ban them. But recently i've noticed a very offensive trend, full nudes in thumbnails of popular gallaries. I'm not talking about implied nudes--the gallary title says there will be nudity--or implicit nudity--you can tell that the subject is nude but you can't see anything--but shots where areas normally covered by the skimpiest of bikinis are shown.


How dare you decide what we are all allowed to see in popular photos and galleries!?

I am tired of seeing photos of pet cats. Can I request that these be banned from popular photos?

I am tired of seeing photos of young girls in tight outfits on skates skating around a rink with one leg lifted in the air. It's pornographic in my opinion.

Get the point?

Yes, I am one of the ones whose images you abhor so much that you don't want to see them in popular photos even though OTHER PBASE MEMBERS VOTED THEM THERE.

PBase needs only to implement a flag that us art nude photographers can select when we upload a nude. Call it "mature content" or whatever you want to call the flag but do it ASAP so that stupid requests like, "please remove all nudity from popular photos" don't come up here every few weeks.

Also, I read the comment questioning shooters choosing not to self-moderate. Let them fall prey to the moderators/admins removing them from PBase meta galleries permanently. At least that would be better for those of us WILLING TO SELF-MODERATE than the status quo where we aren't even notified that our photos have been removed from popular photos/galleries!

trinko
 
Posts: 816


Post Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:34 am


not all nudes are pornography. but i suspect most healthy people get some sexual tingle when looking at nudes. i mean are you telling me millions of years of evolution left people with no response to the vision of the naked bodies of members of the opposite sex? i really don't need my kids getting spun up or thinking that posing nude is a great thing. I won't bother to debate thousands of years of morality that finds nudes something to be confined to loving relationships. I understand that some folks don't believe in that. but they should have enough respect for my beliefs to not force me to see there nude shots. to be honest i find it really bizzare how intolerant some folks are. i've specifically said that i'm not asking for PBase to remove the pics just to let me not see them accidentily. how bigoted it is to insist that my moral beliefs, my tastes, are of no matter but that their belief that children should be randomly exposed to nude shots is an absolute.


bobfloyd wrote:See Andrys, this is part of the issue I am really driving at. I never said pornography, I said nudity. These two things are very different in my world but they appear to not be so different for many Americans. I am trying to understand why that is and you are avoiding it. So is trinko. Why does any nudity equal pornography for so many in this country but not in the rest of the world?

What I just read in your reply said to me that you could not defend your position any longer against the term nudity so you up the stakes by using a word you know I probably will not or cannot defend...pornography.

Requiring no "pornography" in the popular galleries is great but totally useless unless you define what "pornography" is. The real issue is that no definition of pornography has been given. Of course, I understand that we are all not going to agree on what it is or is not. To me, the line is generally somewhere between Playboy and Penthouse, although recently Playboy has been getting closer and closer to that line. To the gentleman who started this thread (and you as well, I suspect) the line is well short of Playboy. I have run across some galleries that I consider over the line as I see it.

I would argue that not all nudity is pornography and I would hold up the works of the masters in both painting and sculpture as examples. So far no one but Ray has commented on my questions about how you regard those and I think we all know which side of this he is on.

I have no axe to grind here. If any of you have looked at my galleries you know that I have nothing there that is of issue to any of you. At least, I don't know it if I do. I also have no plans to post anything here (or anywhere else, for that matter) that would fall under any censorship, optional or otherwise.

I am simply looking for answers, not trying to change the TOS here at Pbase. I signed them and I live by them but I do reserve the right to point out when they damned ambiguous.

hmetal
 
Posts: 246

Re: Please remove nudes in Popular Gallaries Thumbnails

Post Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:52 am


trinko wrote:How dare you say what we have to see in popular galleries? Why is your desire to show nudes superior to my desire to not be surprised by them? I think you fail to see the symetry in our positions. but in any case you should have noted that i agree with your solution. self labeling and self thresholding. seems like we agree on a reasonable compramize. now all we need is for PBase to give us the tools.


I didn't say I wanted you or anyone else to see or not see anything. If you have read all of my comments on this topic, both in this thread and elsewhere, you would have by now known that what I advocate is choice .. BOTH WAYS. Not banning of images, but choices.. all of the below:

a) The choice for me to post my images and have them in popular galleries/photos.

b) The choice for you to not see them in popular galleries/photos by setting a personal preference.

C) The choice for Joe Third to see them in popular galleries/photos by setting his or her (hey, he might be a transvestite ;)) personal preference.
Ray A. Akey
http://luminescentmemories.com - Luminescent Memories Photography
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hmetal - My Flickr
http://www.pbase.com/hmetal/pad - My PAD
http://codemain.com - A small portfolio

matiasasun
 
Posts: 1493

Re: selective censorship

Post Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:34 pm


trinko wrote:the reason we have a first amendment is to limit the censorship to the minimal cases we can all agree on.


I don´t want to sound rude but 95% of the world population does not have that first amendment.
M.
Matias, Chile - http://www.pbase.com/matiasasun
Resources, HOWTOs, Samples and more! - http://pbasewiki.srijith.net/

slowpokebill
 
Posts: 53


Post Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:47 pm


I've been watching this issue for sometime. Ray, I like your solutions. another possible solution would be to just be able to assign a thumbnail that says something like +18 or Nude. That way those that don't want to be surprised won't be unless they click and open the image.

Sorry but the separate gallery seems a bit silly. It isn't like the popular galleries have been overloaded with nude images. Really only a very few... which are generally tasteful and certainly not thought of as pornographic except by some of the very most narrow minded... nude images make it into the popular galleries.

Being able to assign a thumbnail warning to an image or allowing viewers to set a content level seem to be to very workable solutions.

At least people couldn't complain about being surprised by unwanted nude images.

Just a guess though, those that have complained the most about nudity on PBase wouldn't go away. Some will still complain but will have one less somewhat understandable reason. Of course I really don't understand the "surprised by nudity in the popular gallery" comment. Ok you might have been surprised the first time you went to the popular galleries but you certainly can't say you were surprised the second, third and hundredth time you went to view those galleries.

Bill
http://www.pbase.com/slowpokebill

gavia_immer
 
Posts: 119

Re: Liberal "live and let live?"

Post Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:34 am


goislands wrote:Please grow up.
This nudity hysteria is a cultural phenomemon in the US, one which puzzles me again and again. In Europe or Australia you will find topless women in public beaches in numbers.
...


What does this have to do with nudity? Just referencing this in the context of nudity reforces the strange categorizations and ideas some people have. Is a man without a shirt on considered nude? At any rate, is this considered offensive? What is so different about a woman without a shirt on that it is nudity? and why do some consider it offensive or an issue even though for a man in the same context without a shirt it is not? The differences in anatomy are not so great to justify such a distinction.

Although some communities in the state I live may well have local ordinances there is no legal distinction made at the state level in this regard and it is not generally considered illegal in city parks and similar settings. Hopefully when people say they object to "nudity" they are not going this far in their definition.

BTW - This post isn't really directed at goislands post; the post just provided an oportunity to rant about how silly this can get (which was goislands point too).

luc_vn
 
Posts: 283


Post Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:24 am


What about weapons?

Nudes dont kill... but weapons do!

I hate pictures of weapons.

It must be that cultural thing again... of course I am European.

Kind Regards,

Luc VN

bobfloyd
 
Posts: 394


Post Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:15 pm


trinko wrote:not all nudes are pornography.


If all nudes are not pornography why do you act as though they are all bad?

trinko wrote:but i suspect most healthy people get some sexual tingle when looking at nudes. i mean are you telling me millions of years of evolution left people with no response to the vision of the naked bodies of members of the opposite sex? i really don't need my kids getting spun up or thinking that posing nude is a great thing.


I am also sure most healthy folks can appreciate nude art for the beauty it is and do not have to get "spun up" by it sexually. We are not animals so that we are required to have a Pavlovian response to nudity. At least I don't believe we are although I am beginning to think this is exactly what most Americans believe. And posing nude is not necessarily a bad thing. I know many an art student who has spent time on the podium nude for their class mates to draw/paint/sclupt/photograph the human form. Some art schools or individual classes even have it as a requirement of the students to be part of the program.

trinko wrote:I won't bother to debate thousands of years of morality that finds nudes something to be confined to loving relationships. I understand that some folks don't believe in that.


Some folks don't believe this because it is simply not true. The current fear of nudity that is so pervasive in the US is recent and really only dates back to the puritan movement in Europe. Nudity is a way of life for many tribes in Africa and the Pacific, and has been since time began for them. The ancient Greeks competed in athletic competition nude. The Romans had the public baths where nudity was common and expected. I will not go so far as to argue that nudity has been common everywhere down through time but it until the 16th and 17th centuries, it did indeed have it’s place outside the private home.

trinko wrote:but they should have enough respect for my beliefs to not force me to see there nude shots. to be honest i find it really bizzare how intolerant some folks are. i've specifically said that i'm not asking for PBase to remove the pics just to let me not see them accidentily.


What you said was that you don't agree with it but realize that nothing you can say will make Pbase ban them. That is not the same as not asking to have something censored because you respect someone else's beliefs, freedoms or rights. In fact, it implies that you would indeed ask if you thought you could get what you want.

I have respect for your beliefs. In fact I likely would have shared them only a few years ago.

I agree with Bill. How can you say that nudes surprise you in the popular galleries after the first time? It is like the park you talk about your wife's parents avoiding because they had warning of it being clothing optional. You have been to the popular galleries and seen the nudity. You have had warning.

trinko wrote:how bigoted it is to insist that my moral beliefs, my tastes, are of no matter but that their belief that children should be randomly exposed to nude shots is an absolute.


I am not suggesting any such thing. In fact, I favor a way for photographers to mark their work in some fashion so that others may censor it out if that is their desire. However, I only favor it if it is voluntary. I would follow it, not that I have anything in my gallery to mark as there are no nudes in it. I do not want anyone looking at my work who cannot or will not respect it for the work it is and I think most photographers are the same.

I have only asked why it is that only Americans seem concerned about their kids seeing nudes. A point you have not so much as touched on once, I might add. Why is it that Americans are the only ones in these forums calling for a rating system so they can filter the nudes out?

PreviousNext

Board index PBase Feature Requests Please remove nudes in Popular Gallaries Thumbnails

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests