Dark0ne Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I'll stand by my original statement that it's not hard to work out that the image you posted would breaks the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVampireDante Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 These posts by Gratus and bben46 might be worth a read... Especially since it has a large copy of the image in question: link 1. The plant and butterfly count as 'pasties' - one not doing a very good job of it.2. Shadowed but still partially visible public hair on the female.3. The male - he's not very well covered either to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagho Posted August 15, 2012 Author Share Posted August 15, 2012 These posts by Gratus and bben46 might be worth a read... Posted after my shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVampireDante Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 The relevant point being - there is a clear and defined answer to this. It would not have been allowed. If you'd seen that post at any point after you posted the image - you would have had to faced the facts and taken it down yourself. I take it you did not see those comments before now, or (I would hope) you would have done so. You've been told this already multiple times now - the shot isn't allowed. it would have been fine in the supporters imageshare, but you do not have access to that area, so you have to go without posting material of that sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikazekossori Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I am one of those who loved this pic and its incredible artistry. The shot was a masterpiece and was extremely taste fully done, it was art and took Yagho a long time to create. It should be obvious from his posts that he had no malicious intent and a slipery slope argument is hardly a compelling argument for its removal. I can tell you without a doubt that he saw those posts before now and they don't make things as clear as you would like to think. If there truly had been a clear and defined answer to this as you say then would it not have been removed immediately without two weeks going by? Respectfully, Kami Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetradite Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 To anyone who thinks it's easy to draw a line between "artful" or "tasteful" nudity and smut, it isn't, it just isn't. I say this as someone who personally finds the image in question artful, and not smut (I bet money that most of my family would say it was smut though). I could quite easily find 1,000 images of 'fetish art' that I genuinely think are artful but 90% of the membership here and probably 95% of the world's population would say are smut. I won't. Because I'd get banned. The only difference between art and smut is in the viewer's perception, not the maker's intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagho Posted August 15, 2012 Author Share Posted August 15, 2012 @The Vampire Dante Yes, you have told me multiple times now, and I have no trouble comprehending what you mean. I'll confirm I understood what your viewpoint is and there's no need to repeat. I never argued about it. The rules are what you say they are - it's just difficult to anticipate them if you draw them up with hindsight [that was my point].But of course you differ on that. you have to go without posting material of that sort.Don't worry I'll go without posting material of any sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunanella Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I guess that the "No Nudity Allowed" line needs to be more accurate, then. What *is* considered nudity: simple bare skin as seen in artworks or explicit genitalia? Really, guys. I am one of the members who keeps reporting images when they are way too revealing and such, but this... this is something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I didn't see the image, but I have to say the rules are pretty clear that the barely covered scenario is not permitted in the regular image share, that kind of thing has to go in Supporter Images. So you need to be a supporter or a Premium member. At one time we were getting a warning message about nudity/barely covered in the Supporter Image share, so I applied the "If in doubt, don't post it" rule and posted in the Feedback and Questions forum, to which Dark0ne replied and told me the images would be OK. Only then did I post them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetradite Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I guess that the "No Nudity Allowed" line needs to be more accurate, then. What *is* considered nudity: simple bare skin as seen in artworks or explicit genitalia? Really, guys. I am one of the members who keeps reporting images when they are way too revealing and such, but this... this is something else. Any rule on this will ALWAYS include subjective definitions requiring interpretation. You cannot rigidly and explicitly define "acceptable partial nudity" without subjective judgements, it is quite literally impossible. Given this, I don't see how the rules as they stand could be much clearer, excepting possibly they should have the reference to "1px wide" removed or changed as it technically suggests that anything 2px wide and above is acceptable, when it may well not be. The image we're talking about is IMO, artful and a fine piece of work. If it were my own site I'd allow it. But, how anyone can think for one second that it isn't against the rules as they are currently defined is absolutely beyond me. It is clearly against the rules, even if just for the woman's right nipple. The only argument then for it to be allowed is one of taste, for which, see my previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts