Isn't there another place for nudes?

I know this has been said before, but I was just so shocked. I came online and clicked on the

"members request for critique". The very first image was a woman sprawled out, totally

naked, and looking most like what I would define porn! My son is in the room and I couldn't

get it off fast enough. I covered the screen with my (skinny!) hand. I only hope he didn't see

it.

 

I just find that so offensive. Can't those be limited to a place where there will be a warning or

only seen by request? Or something?

You'll find this isn't a new topic

 

 

See, for example http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Gae&tag=

Janet, if you think it was <i> <b> porn </i> </b> than report it as such to abuse @ photo . net. If it was just a nude human body, than it was just a nude human body.

It would be great if uploads could be categorized as adult fare or general audience. A user could then filter photos on this basis. This feature is available at photosig.com and I use it commonly at home to filter images I prefer my children not see.

Yes Robert! I agree. Maybe if this had been implemented, so many of my images would not have been removed from this site. It was never my intention to offend anyone but as can be seen from Janet's post, some people are offended.

Yeah, I wish there was a way of filtering the shots into what you could class as <R> or

whatever.

Interesting point I have just remembered. Whilst waiting for a plane at the airport I often rate photos by going to 'Gallery' and 'Critique Forum' in the airline lounge. I can go to any 'Category' in the Critique Forum except 'Nudes' so it is possible to set your browser to filter them.... just don't ask me how.

 

Havig said that, 'Nudes' will still appear in the 16 most recent images and presumably 'Rate Photos' queue.

Janet, I would bet you've never tried to cover with your hands or changing channel when in a film on TV there are mass killings, dying bodies with their guts sprawled out, blood spiting as geysers from open throats and so on, to prevent your sun from seeing it. People should really seriously reconsider their nonsense definitions of immorality.

We should respect other people and take into account their views, not force our views on

them. A take it or leave it attitude is just saying anyother views are not up for

consideration.

 

No censorship is being asked for by Janet just a way to restrict viewing on HER COMPUTER

IN HER HOME.

 

This in no way infringes anyones rights. It isn't really a lot to ask.

 

Mr and Mrs Negative of Pnet will of course immediately give reasons to do nothing as

always.

Thank goodness you were able to cover the image in time. There's no telling what terrible and long lasting effects would have befallen your son had he seen the image. You should also be wary of Art Galleries where depraved artists from past and present have also inflicted naked bodies upon unsuspecting people.

Alexandre, "People should really seriously reconsider their nonsense definitions of immorality." Maybe you can steer us in the right direction?

Louis, I take your point. I do respect Janet's view and what I wrote was regarding general situations. I guess I'm just enough of so much hypocrisy, thus I went out of the subject.

 

Tim, I'm nobody to steer anyone in any directions. I was just letting out some momentaneous steam. Anyway, yes, for me it is a complete nonsense to find the human body offensive and at the same time to live so well with and support things such as wars (just generally speaking). I would gladly discuss with you such issues, but in some more appropriate place than this forum.

Alexandre,

 

Its mostly an American phenomenon and comes from early puritians to this country, and of course is perpetuated by religious fanatics, all of whom have been making the naked budy, especially a womans, a high sin and evil to look at. Its a sad comment on how our society sees things, but I doubt it is going to change much, ever.

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

......the perenial nude debate on these pages is becomming almost as boring as the perpetual ratings debate!

 

Yawn Yawn......

Louis Wrote:

<i>"No censorship is being asked for by Janet just a way to restrict viewing on HER COMPUTER IN HER HOME."</i><p>

 

The easiest way for Janet (or anyone) to take control of her life herself (and not demand some form of "legislation" be done) and RESTRICT what is seen (if she's afraid of "harmeful" images damaging her child) is to view this site when he's not in the room. Its pretty obvious to everyone here that this site has nekkid people on it. And if a user is concerned about damaging a child by exposing them to a nekkid body, then it is up TO THAT USER to control when this site is viewed in their home. Like Alexandre pointed out, I wonder how careful Janet is with images of death and destruction (images I find more dangerous and offensive than the naked body) that I am sure her son is exposed to in other ways in her home, thru tv, books, and stories, school, and society at large.<p><i>

 

"This in no way infringes anyones rights. It isn't really a lot to ask."</i><p>

 

What's really not a lot to ask is for Janet to control herself and her usage to a site she knows has images of naked people on it to a time when her son is not in the room, if she's that concerned. There is also a power button on the front of every monitor made. If she was worried about her "skinny" hand (would a fat hand have served her better? And why should she need to mention that her hand is skinny?) not covering the screen, she should have hit the power off button, or better yet, use the site when her son is not in the room.<p><i>

 

"Mr and Mrs Negative of Pnet will of course immediately give reasons to do nothing as always."</i><p>

 

As opposed to asking everyone to subscribe to the typically American notion that the naked body is sinful and therefore should be hidden. Or asking everyone on Pnet to accept the fact that Janet (or anyone for that matter) can't control her useage to a site that has nudity on it to a time when her son is not in the room.<p>

 

Sounds like a typical conservative mindset.</p>

...once again (for about the third time on these pages) I blame that pesky snake in the garden for all this immature nonsence!

 

Don't censor photo.net - censor yourselves if it is your own particular want and folly - If you are so sensitive about the corruption of your son, you should really take more responsibility and take yourself off into a locked, windowless room to browse the pages of photo.net, or better still dispence with the "evils" of the internet altogether!

 

What you ask is totally impractical - it would rely upon photographers being willing to censor their own work, by submitting it to a "restricted" category - something that I would not be prepared to do. Or to have some hapless fool trawl through all images loaded up to this site before they are made available to view in order to assign them an age cirtificate, warning or some such nonsence - It's impractical and silly.

 

For God's sake, lets all grow up, accept some responsibility for our own (pointless) morals, and act accordingly! - personally I have never seen anything on this site that I think a child should not see - they live in the real world too, and have a right to understand life on their own terms - the corruption to which you allude is an artificial construct, and one based in a history of social control and superstitious religious dogma!

 

...it makes me so cross! (sham-rage xx)

 

Nick.

Mrs. Negative and I, having just finished our of kippers and gruel, applaud the efforts

of those who would impose a new level of non-censorship for those non-prudes who

want a wholesome photo.net presence in their homes (yet cannot figure our how to

control their own computers).

<I>What you ask is totally impractical - it would rely upon photographers being willing to censor their own work, by submitting it to a "restricted" category - something that I would not be prepared to do.</I>

 

 

<P>Nicholas -

 

<P>I am curious why you would be unwilling to indicate whether a particular image contains nudity? I imagine something like this could be implemented as a radio button similar to the manipulated/unmanipulated button. Surely that could trigger a global switch that a user could turn on or off in their account as needed. It would certainly not be foolproof, but would probably be good enough. There are times (e.g. at the bar, library, train station, etc) when I have my laptop and would like to browse the TRP or the other galleries, but don't because of the nudity issue. I'm not offended by it, but I recognize that others around me may be.

Not only would people disregard the button, but there are THOUSANDS of already-

uploaded nudes here which nobody would go back to re-categorize.

 

It's unnecessary: photo.net has nudes in it. If you are part of the minority of people,

an occasionally vocal one but still a minority, who are offended by nudity or cannot

view nudity at work or are afraid that your viewing will be simultaneously seen by

kiddies whose minds will subsequently become warped ... then don't visit the site. At

work, don't visit the site. If nudes offend you personally, then only visit the forums

and stay away from the photos. If there are kiddies around, make them go away.

Good question Chad - Essentially I don't believe in any form of censorship, and would be agrieved to support something that I despise and nhave no creedance for! If you believe in that sort of nonsence, perhaps you should ask yourself why, and for who's benefit...?

 

...besides, I have enough difficulty deciding if my images are landscapes, abstracts or fine art (I sould be so lucky!), I certainly would have no idea if they would upset the prudish majority of the Western World?

 

[just for the record, I have no nudes in my portfolio - its just not my thing in the same way that I have no macro images]

 

Nick.

This question has been discussed a few times.

 

The main reason why the site does not provide a "Nude" filter is that the categorization of images as "Nudes" could not be 100% effective and we don't want the legal liability of seeming to claim that we have a filter when it could not be 100% effective. Someone would inevitably sue us when he/she got fired after a Nude appeared on the screen at work when supposedly they were using the filter. It is legally safer for us simply to state that there is content on the site that is not suitable for viewing in all situations or for all viewers, and that people should use their discretion when browsing the site.

 

The reasons that a filter could not be 100% effective are:

 

(1) if we relied on the photographers to categorize the photos, there would inevitably be photographers who would not do so or would do it incorrectly, either deliberately, by mistake, or through ignorance. Today, we already ask people to categorize the photos when they submit them for critique (which isn't all photos), and even though people are asked to classify any photo depicting nudity in that category, we get nudes also in other categories, such as "Portraits", "Fashion", or "Fine Art". (We also get naked animals and whatnot in the Nudes category but that is another topic.)

 

(2) if we didn't rely on the photographers to classify photos, we would have to have a system for moderators, paid or volunteer, to classify them. This would be an enormous amount of painstaking work that would have to be done every day, accurately, and without fail. There is a huge backlog of unclassified photos that would have to be classified. This is a lot to ask from volunteers. Furthermore, if a volunteer failed to do it properly, I'm not sure a court would consider that we had exercised due care in entrusting the task to volunteers. For these reasons, we would probably have to pay people to do it, and we couldn't afford that. More importantly, it would involve a fundamental change to the way photo posting works. Today anybody can post a photo without it being reviewed, and we remove it afterwards if someone notices that it violates the Terms of Use. If we had to have a 100% reliable system of classification, everyone uploading photos would have to wait while their photo was classified before it could be exhibited on the site. We don't want to make that kind of fundamental change to the way the site works just to provide filters.

This are some pictures send to me by a friend of mine about a statue near Evora, Portugal.<br>

Do I like it? No I do not!<br>

Should it removed? Of course not!<br>

Sometimes we do not have the tolerance that we claim that others should have. Think about the reaction against the cartoons of Muhammad. The funny thing is that besides all the reaction I think that the nudity photos are the most rated in photo.net. This certainly means something.<div></div>

Brian, your points in section (2) are reasonable and I hadn't considered some of them

previously. Thanks for pointing them out. On the other hand, perhaps with an uploads

"honour system" you could still somewhat filter the nudes and include a disclaimer stating

that it's not feasable for pnet to completely filter everything and viewers may still come

across nudes.<br><br>

 

<i>"it would rely upon photographers being willing to censor their own work" </i>

<br><br>

 

It's not a matter of censorship; it's a matter of classification. If people can't figure out

whether or not a photo goes into the nudes category or belongs in with the landscapes,

then perhaps they should take up another hobby. Effectively, what you and some others

are saying is that everyone should be forced to have to see your photos, whether they

want to or not. That's no better than censorship; both contain an element of exercising

your will on another person without regard to their wishes.<br><br>

 

This is my "art". Let me rub your nose in it. Sheesh.

How about creating a filter to protect the sensitivity of people suffering from arachnophobia to view photos of spiders on photo.net and yet another to prevent offending people who still consider cats as creatures sent by the demon to curse them? Oh right, this last one shouldn't be needed anymore since about the 18th century... hmmm is this thread taking place in the 21st century?!...

Chad wrote: <i>."I am curious why you would be unwilling to indicate whether a particular image contains nudity?</i><p>

 

Umm, thats what the nude catagory does...says the image is a nude. And for the most part, only nudes are posted there...although you get the occasional person without a clue who posts there to "get noticed".<p>

 

<i>"There are times (e.g. at the bar, library, train station, etc) when I have my laptop and would like to browse the TRP or the other galleries, but don't because of the nudity issue. I'm not offended by it, but I recognize that others around me may be."</i><p>

 

So you also want PN to censor itself so people looking over your shoulder don't get offended by nudes? Have you asked newspapers and news outlets to censor themselves because a picture of a dead body, or some other violent act, might offend someone looking over your shoulder at the bar, library, train station, etc? Again, like my advise to Janet, if you are in a situation where you are concerned about offending someone, take the responsibility YOURSELF and control your viewing habits. Why force a silly concept on everyone just so you can view PN when you want without taking responsibility for your own actions.</p>