Photo.net, the site!

<blockquote>

<p>I do have the ability to remove images from the gallery, so if you find anything truly shocking, pornographic and blatantly offensive to a mature, adult viewer, I will certainly consider excising it from the site. Yes, I know, censorship, but I assume you'd be in favor of that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One more demonstration that this is not a community, but a common dictatorial business. A legitimate community would create and maintain <em>their own standards</em> on such issues, not rely on petitioning one guy to "consider" excising the offending photograph. "One guy" a community does not make. </p>

<p >I’ve been judging Photography Exhibitions and Competitions for many years.</p>

<p >None of the listed 13 images would qualify as shocking, pornographic and blatantly offensive to a mature, adult viewer.</p>

<p >None were “vagina” images in the sense of being a gynaecological study or for pornographic pursuit.</p>

<p >All were of an artistic form in keeping with the Art of the Nude as seen not only n Photography but also in sketching; painting; drawing and 3D modelling / sculpting from many materials other also other artistic imagery, which incidentally, the study of which is part of the Curriculum for High School Art Students, whom I tutor, so I include 17 an 18 year olds in the class of a “mature adult viewer”. </p>

<p >I see not one of those 13 images as being “prurient” in either its conception or its execution.</p>

<p >Certainly various views of what is “prurient” <strong><em>to oneself</em></strong> will exist – but Photo.net has a separate “nudes” section (perhaps that too, is censorship?) – so therefore one doesn’t have to venture to the nudes section and look, if doing so, offends one. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p><em>"I think most of them qualify as artistic and reasonably well done."</em></p>

<p>There's the rub (pun intended). In my (very opinionated) opinion, many photos have all the expected outward signs of art and are reasonably well done but still fail miserably at actually being art or artistic. The historical hallmarks of photographic art are technical proficiency, dazzling lighting, good tonal qualities or variation, and the ability to somewhat abstract a known and recognizable subject. Of course, many of those hallmarks have been and are changing over time. But folks still understandably latch on to them as hallmarks of artistry. Artistry, IMO, requires more. Perhaps some degree of humanity, feeling, revelation, personality, emotional quotient, or any number of other things I'm not mentioning.</p>

<p>Some photos of vaginas, or women's bodies, or penises or men's bodies for that matter, are no different, IMO, from the photos of well-executed and tonally vibrant homeless people or disabled people or people of other cultures who become more curiosities than anything else and which don't come near art either but are simply good quality objectifying and exploiting. I mentioned revelation, and that's an interesting one, because on the surface some of these photos, especially the ones with the legs spread real wide, would seem to reveal a lot. In fact, they mask more than they reveal, and not in the positive sense in which a mask can add mystery or mystique but rather in a negative sense. What I see is both subject and photographer often hiding behind so-called artistic gestures but lacking any actual showing of empathy with the subject matter, and if not empathy, at least something emotionally engaging. Were a vagina to be truly revealed as something significant and worth my considering, I'm sure I'd find it very worth my time and energy. But when a vagina, or a woman for that matter, is presented as a tonally varied and lit object, I'm much less inclined to give a hoot. Same for all those amazingly buffed guys with ripped abs in Greek-like athletic poses that seem to suggest artistry. Hollow and empty, devoid of caring or insight. Not art, IMO, even though it might at first glance look like it should be.</p>

<p>I certainly understand not finding the linked photos offensive. Though I don't think of them as art, I'm not particularly offended by them though I am sometimes offended by what I perceive to be exploitation or objectification. I do know that the opposite opinion has been expressed, often by women who are noticeably absent from this male-dominated discussion about vaginas. Many, many women have expressed offense at the nudes section. I've read them countless times on a variety of photo pages and in a variety of forum threads, yet it rightfully hasn't led to deletions. Women are often quick learners, and I hate to generalize, so please forgive me this trespass. They most likely quickly learned to avoid the PN nudes section rather than be continually exercised about it. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the same can be said of those who took offense at posts in the Off Topic forum.</p>

<p>I don't think there was an actual suggestion that any photos be removed. The point being made was that people's posts should be treated with the same respect as their photos. To wit, don't remove unless absolutely necessary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>None of the listed 13 images would qualify as shocking, pornographic and blatantly offensive to a mature, adult viewer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What percentage of the Photo.net MEMBERS would you think qualify as "mature adult viewers then?" </p>

<p>Would the Quakers and Baptists and Mormons qualify as mature adult viewers? Would they take offense? How about the grandmas out there? Can pnet run these photos across the "daily photo sampling" banner? If not, why not?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Many, many women have expressed offense at the nudes section. I've read them countless times on a variety of photo pages and in a variety of forum threads, yet it rightfully hasn't led to deletions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I would expect they would by a large ratio. Thanks. Now William W. is going to argue the women aren't "mature adult viewers," based on his post. In which we now can finally understand that <em>maturity</em> is a relative, not absolute condition. I am sure it feels very sophisticated and mature to be blase about genitalia photos, because you know, it's "black and white art." But to any person steeped in the deeper values of humanism, which I assure you takes quiet a bit more maturity than simply acting hip at the art museum, these photos represent well understood forms of human exploitation, male dominant society, and repression. But you know, carry on boys.</p>

<p>Now it is also painfully obvious to all that the minute a discussion is going to become serious about any art, or artists, politics is the immediate currency. Because art is nothing more than graphic politics. This recent obsession to scrub politics, to be offended and righteously indignant about political posts, is inconsistent with any serious notion of talking about art. But then again, does anyone posting here consider photography to be art? Not too many. </p>

<i> to be offended and righteously indignant about political posts</i><P>

People weren't complaining because they found the topics of such posts offensive. People complained because those topics almost always led to endless back-and-forth posturing and insults that had no constructive purpose, arguing only for the sake of arguing. The atmosphere of hostility and personal grudges spilled over into other areas and infected other topics. It isn't thought-provoking or shocking--it's just relentlessly annoying.

<blockquote>

<p>What percentage of the Photo.net MEMBERS would you think qualify as "mature adult viewers then?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't matter and I don't make those qualifications.</p>

<p>As I mentioned Photo.net has a clearly defined "nudes" section which is accessible IF one wants to go there the chocei to go there is by the viewer.</p>

<p>If a person doesn't want to look at those images, then they simply don't go there. Those who choose not to go there to look at nudes, <em><strong>obviously</strong></em> may well be mature adult viewers - who simple choose that nudes are not part of their culture or whatever - that's fine.</p>

<p>For better clarity my points were twofold:<br>

firstly considering mainstream art by mainstream viewers, the images are not offensive<br /> and<br /> secondly if people don't want to look they don't have to</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p><em><strong>“Many, many women have expressed offense at the nudes section. I've read them countless times on a variety of photo pages and in a variety of forum threads, yet it rightfully hasn't led to deletions.”</strong></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>As I would expect they would by a large ratio. Thanks. Now William W. is going to argue the women aren't "mature adult viewers," based on his post.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nonsense.<br /> That’s just a silly extrapolation and is purposely set as bait. <br /> I argued no such thing about women; nor religious people; nor grandmothers.<br /> As previously mentioned the Nudes section is secluded – one choses to go there and view those images - or not.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If a person doesn't want to look at those images, then they simply don't go there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. That's the exact argument which was rejected by the mods considering the OT forum. Don't like it, don't read it. Simple. </p>

<p>In this thread, the point being made is that many people would be offended at the vagina anus photos and they are told, "don't look at them." But in the OT Forum, that concept was rejected.</p>

<p>As an aside, I completely reject your proposition that none of those photos would be offensive to mature adult viewers. Some would not be offended and some would. And with no standard declared for maturity there's no point in arguing about it, other than to simply disagree. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What would make me happy is for you to direct your employees to stop endlessly hounding, scolding and insulting a group of members who were merely posting a forum that was created by the company for Off Topic posts."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Moderators are not employees. We're volunteers. We're mostly janitors who evict spammers and clean up after the daily saloon brawls. Occasionally we point to the rules for the house, <a href="/info/terms-of-use">which you failed to read and heed</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Now William W. is going to argue the women aren't "mature adult viewers," based on his post."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For a guy who claims to be a "polemicist" you seem remarkably indifferent to your own logical fallacies and departures from any standards for intelligent debate. I'll need another legal pad to keep up with your tally.</p>

<p>At least when I said I <em>preferred</em> classical rhetoric I didn't claim to practice it consistently. I'm much better at sarcastic cliches, although I try to avoid them like the plague.</p>

<p>How 'bout we drop the pretense. You're not a polemicist. You're a gigantic chip on a shoulder worn by a guy who likes to argue and make up, amend and append the rules for arguing as he goes along. And you're not here for the photography, you're here for the arguments. And to write the words for human anatomical bits as often as possible. Congrats on your new copypasta keyboard macro.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"My weekly photo critique group is not a business."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you not get the opportunity to satisfactorily exorcise your political demons at your weekly photo critique group sessions? Or do they actually prefer to critique photos rather than indulge in digressions?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes. That's the exact argument which was rejected by the mods considering the OT forum. Don't like it, don't read it. Simple.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As already mentioned (several times) - the Off Topic Forum is fluid and the content is additive interactive and changes - and it was the toxic nature of the manner in which that content changed and etc. which was damaging.</p>

<p>The comparison to a static content forum such as the Nudes Section (if you go to nudes you know that there will be nudes) and then make an argument based upon that comparison is just silly, in my opinion.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>This thread is beginning to resemble, or has become one of those alleged offending OT threads. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nonsense.<br /> That’s just a silly extrapolation and is purposely set as bait. <br /> I argued no such thing about women; nor religious people; nor grandmothers.<br /> As previously mentioned the Nudes section is secluded – one choses to go there and view those images - or not.<br>

WW</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The choice to go to that section was not being argued. Only the offensiveness of the photos themselves. Here's what you said: <strong>"None of the listed 13 images would qualify as shocking, pornographic and blatantly offensive to a mature, adult viewer."</strong></p>

<p>Fred claims many women have complained frequently about being offended. So, what's it going to be? Are they just immature, or are they not adults? Your argument leaves no other choice.</p>

<p>I'm a mature adult, and I find them ridiculously offensive for being posted here. Not because I am offended at human bodies, but because I am offended as a living, breathing, sentient being by the gross exploitation they represent. I'm offended that others with cameras find it thrilling to turn women into hanging meat displays. But, that's just me as an individual. I know my mom would be offended by them too, and she is a mature adult. I know my sister would be offended by them too, and she also is a mature adult.</p>

<p>What you aren't grasping is that the standard for offense is relative, and based on the set of belief systems held by any given specific mature adult.</p>

 

As he has already done in two other threads about the Off-Topic forum, m stephens brilliantly demonstrates the problems that led to the OT forum's closure. False claims, spurious comparisons, shifting topics, insults . . . anything to keep the argument going. Argument for the sake of argument.

<blockquote>

<p>How 'bout we drop the pretense. You're not a polemicist. You're a gigantic chip on a shoulder worn by a guy who likes to argue and make up, amend and append the rules for arguing as he goes along. And you're not here for the photography, you're here for the arguments. And to write the words for human anatomical bits as often as possible. Congrats on your new copypasta keyboard macro.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keep going Lex. You're managing to write one of those character attacks EVERY SINGLE DAY! I keep my arguments to the subject matter, and obviously you can't. WW made a logical error in his argument that anyone could drive a truck through, and I pointed it out. That's what a debate is Lex. </p>

<p>Mike, I'm all for lively debates, but it does take a responder to engage in a debate so any thread that goes awry has shared responsibilities. </p>

<p>I suggest we keep this thread on topic, and if you find yourself becoming repetitious or discussing matters unimportant to the OP, please take these discussions off-thread to continue in private so we can hopefully allow something fruitful to the site emerge through on topic discussions. </p>

<p>The worst part about this train wreck is the digression from Apurva's original optimistic, constructive effort to have a useful discussion about how to improve photo.net, from a longtime member, subscriber and genuine photography enthusiast.</p>

<p>I'm inclined to suggest we reboot this conversation elsewhere and keep it strictly on topic. Meaning, not another whine session about the OT forum, which already has its own whine sessions in at least two other threads. And not some bizarrely obsessive rant session about photos of human anatomical features.</p>

<p>There's a lot of potentially useful and constructive stuff in this thread but it's no longer a viable discussion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Argument for the sake of argument.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike,<br>

That's the refrain of every single person who can't keep up with the issues in a debate. I'm not kidding - every single one! No, it's not argument for "argument's sake". The arguments here are clear, important, relatively simple and concise, but contested hotly. Knowing if the stash of anus and vagina photos I linked would be offensive to others is not just "argument for argument's sake." If you think so, I have to wonder why you even keep posting? WW is able to argue his point. Bob was able to argue his. Martin his. Fred his. But, you and Lex can only stand back and write about my personality. Hmmm?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"You're managing to write one of those character attacks EVERY SINGLE DAY!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dog knows, I needed a good laugh. Thanks. For awhile there I thought you were serious. Your sense of the absurd is so finely honed we all missed the joke.</p>

<p>Reminds me of something a co-worker's wife told him at a company gathering several years ago. She scolded him saying <strong>"You exaggerate more than anyone else in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE!"</strong></p>

<i>That's the refrain of every single person who can't keep up with the issues in a debate</i><P>

In this case, it's the refrain of people who don't wish to waste a significant amount of time addressing the long list of fallacies and falsities in your posts. However, I will explain the reason for that. First, it's what you want, and as Michael Chang noted above, feeding the troll makes me responsible for keeping the troll alive. Second, it lends your claims more validity than they deserve. Third, it's pointless. It's quite clear that "discussions" with you don't lead anywhere except to the generation of more arguing points. The only real goal is to keep the argument going.<p>

 

Michael C. and Lex are right: we're doing a great disservice to Apurva and the other posters who have attempted to make this a constructive discussion. For that, I apologize.

<p>This thread has outlived its usefulness. It will now be closed. Once a thread gets this long almost nobody ever reads it all so it ends up going around in circles, straying way off the original topic and/or descending into back and forth bickering between a few participants (I plead guilty on several counts).</p>

<p>If someone wants to further discuss substantive issues related to the site, feel free to start a new thread.</p>