Becoming a porno site?

I cannot help but notice in the top photo's section there are

creeping in more and more full nudity images of woman and males. They

may be good photo's in themselves but this site, I am sure has many

youngsters who are interested in photography logging in.

If I want to have lots of full nudity images I will click on the

porno sites I keep getting sent in my e-mails!

Less nudity more good shots!

Alexander, your body is ok, everyones body is ok, keep saying this to yourself, my body is ok, everyones body is ok.

This issue has been discussed at length, but now there's a new wrinkle, albeit a small one. When an image is uploaded, we are now asked to mark a nude image for inclusion in the new nude category, even if one might reasonably categorize it in other ways (portrait, landscape, etc.). You can't exclude nudes from selected gallery views unless there's a reasonable amount of compliance. Otherwise it becomes a burden to Brian, or whoever else has shell access for that purpose. There are a lot of changes going on right now despite protestations to the contrary. Let's see what happens.

I've a sneaking suspicion that people in general and youngsters in particular like to look at nudes. With the new category nudes are now easier to find and rate. I've also a sneaking suspicion that there will be far more nudes appearing in the "Top Photos" default view. Makes a change from all those cheesy bluebell shots.

There are a few more nudes than usual. However, nudes do not equate to pornography, so even if this were a long-term persistent trend it would not mean photo.net was becoming a "porno" site.

 

Many people seem to have trouble making the distinction between nudity and pornography, and it would appear you are one of them. It is the policy of photo.net to delete pornography while permitting images containing nudity. It is famously difficult to define pornography, but we don't have too much difficulty recognizing it, and pornography is quickly deleted if we observe it or it is called to our attention.

 

Nudes have a very long tradition in the arts in general, and in photography specifically. The beauty of the human form is something that has inspired artists using many different artistic media, in almost all historical periods. Learning to draw nude human figures was an important part of the education of any artist, and still is. This tradition has carried over into photography.

 

However, it is doubtful photo.net is even becoming a site dominated by images of nudes. The number of nudes on the first couple of Top Rated pages fluctuates up and down, and right now it has increased a little, it would seem. That either means more people happen to be uploading good nude images, or that the current cadre of raters is more inclined to rate nudes highly, or a combination of both. Perhaps also the new "Nudes" category in the Critique Forum has made it easier for people who like nudes to find them and rate them, and this has resulted in them becoming more prominent.

 

Other subjects go through cycles also. Some days it seems like every photo in the TRP is a flower. Other days, we get a lot of landscapes. When that happens, for some reason, we don't get people lamenting in this forum that photo.net is becoming a "flower" site or a "landscape" site.

 

If the increase in the number of nudes in the TRP turns out to be anything other than the usual fluctuation, we will decide what, if anything, to do about it.

"They may be good photo's in themselves but this site, I am sure has many youngsters who are interested in photography logging in"

 

Yeah.. geez.. youngsters should never have to learn about evil stuff like nudity.. We should be teachin em about guns instead!

 

If you don't like to see naked people.. don't look at them.. and it's not going to corrode a youngsters mind to see a nude form.. I'd rather have my kid see nudity for what it is than to preach how "bad" it is, and having him grow up like a puritan...

<i><blockquote> Makes a change from all those cheesy bluebell shots.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

From bluebells to blue ... ah, never mind.

My employer, JPMorganChase, has now made this site inaccessible as of last Friday. Reason: nudity. Oh well, now I'll have to work more and wait until I get home to hit the site.

Richard, there are simple ways around these blocks, some are

<u><A href =

http://www.the-cloak.com/terms.html>

even free web services</a></u>.

"... simple ways..."

 

Simple-minded solution. All his network guys have to do is spot "CONNECT www.the-Cloak.com [Encrypted Data....]" to become suspicious and put a screen & key logger on his machine. Sheesh!

Richard, time to go to work for a em-mkt boutique. I know some guys at a Russian bank where anything goes. Drop me a note if you want an in.

 

Great half-dome shot, by the way. Ever consider large format?

 

Mac (former UBS trader, now in hiding in central Oregon)

Now I know why Europe is laughing at us.

There's more reasons. <i>"Is our children learning?"</i>

<blockquote><b>There's</b> more reasons.</blockquote>

Umm....

When I was a teenager, there was a group of teenagers who had a love sshack, including a large love seat, and on one wall, each had a seperate section for tacking their used

condoms to the wall.<p><p>

Sometimes I wonder if some photo.net members think of their gallary

as a fort wall?<p><p>

Maybe I am envious that I didn't have any used condoms to tack on the

wall.<p><p>

But seriously, what motivates certain male photographers to post nude

photos of beautiful ameteur models who are supposedly professionals?

>>If I want to have lots of full nudity images I will click on the porno sites I keep getting sent in my e-mails!<<

 

SO, you are *equating* the work posted on Photo.net (which BTW is quite good as I have seen those nudes) to the utter trash used on porno sites?!?!?

 

Dude, you need some serious re-evaluation of YOUR values.

 

I love how you (and many people like you) always HIDE behind "children" or, in this case "youngsters". Why don't you guys leave the kids alone? Speak about yourself and what it is that *YOU* have against photos of nudes taken by quite capable, artistic and communicative photographers.

>>My employer, JPMorganChase, has now made this site inaccessible as of last Friday. Reason: nudity. Oh well, now I'll have to work more and wait until I get home to hit the site.<<

 

that's right - GOD forbid you have the nerve to go take it to them, instead you come here and ask (ever so subtly) that Photo.net changes its policies to please YOUR boss.

 

What a great example of freedom you are. As long as they pay you enough you can do without "a little of this, and a little of that".

 

In any case, your BOSS presumably presented you a contract of employment. If he's legally entitled to do as he did it is only your fault that you accepted a job in such a place.

 

You made YOUR decision: MONEY over freedom to browse a website so, why are you trolling about it?

Alright, Ashcroft...is that you? So glad you discovered the Internet...

"There's more reasons."

 

It be time to quite wile you a head.

Of course our bodies are "ok," but what does that have to do with displaying them on the Internet? It's obvious that there's nothing intrinsically "bad" about the human body (on the contrary, I believe our bodies are sacred). The body and the purposes it serves are very good. I just can't find the reasoning that supports an equation like "body is good" = "let's show it to everybody." Just to make it clear, I haven't mentioned the word "pornography" here, and that doesn't really appear to be the issue here anyway. Mr McMillan put the word "porno" in the original subject line, but I think nudity is what he's really talking about. I also wouldn't mind being given the freedom to be exposed to only the non-nude photos if I want to when I peruse this site.

Ahhhh... I was one of the ones agitating for marking pics "nude" to allow a filter to block

to address complaints of people mostly about nudes popping up on computers at lunch

hour at work.

<p>

And now it just makes them easier to find. :-) Hmmmm... I think I am very naive.

<p>

That said, a random sampling seems to be showing more nudes uploaded since the nude

category opened up - is that possible Brian? (Actually, some of them were pretty good -

but that's besides the point). Are there more nude uploads? I would love to hear a theory

explaining why if it is true.

<p>

No matter though in the greater scheme of things.

To shed some light on the "what motivates" question...

 

A couple of years ago I was in a strip club (not through choice but not unwillingly), and I discovered something. A strip club tries to trigger bits of the brain to say "Sex is close", in the same way that a roller-coaster stimulates adrenaline by making you think danger is close. Of course there isn't really danger on the roller coaster, and there isn't any chance of sex in a strip club.

 

But when I go on a roller coaster I'm interested in how it's made, even find myself trying to calculate speeds on the ride. In the strip club I got fascinated by the shapes of the dancers. I don't want to look at a pair of breasts close up, I like to look at a single breast from the side, from below - the complexity of curves where the breast joins up with the ribcage fasciates me. And I realised how beautiful backs and shoulders can be.

 

So I decided I wanted to get some of that fascination with the body into pictures. I hired a professional model and went to work. I've dabbled with fetishy pictures and although I think they're OK bits of photography they're not me.

 

I'm a very poor judge of my own work, I put things on photo.net to get some kind of feedback. That's why I don't like the changes to the rating system because I can no longer track someone's scoring history on my pictures and say they liked X more than Y.

 

You can have pornography with clothes on and you can have art without clothes. Equating nudity with obscenity is simple minded at best, and philistine at worst (there's no difference between Michaelangelo and Larry Flint). The defining thing about Pornography is the intent to arouse; and it's not easy to judge intent from the picture.

 

For what it's worth the pictures that I have shot which I wouldn't want my daughter to see all have clothing in them (the fetishy ones which I think are not "me"). There isn't one fully nude shot in my portfolio which is off limits to her.

>>I also wouldn't mind being given the freedom to be exposed to only the non-nude photos if I want to when I peruse this site.<<

 

You have that freedom: no one is forcing you to be here :) On the other hand you ARE forcing others to YOUR wants (your idea of freedom). Dig the difference?

 

It never changes, the story is always the same: "I should be free to do this and that...but, I want every one else to do as I say".

 

Interesting concept of "freedom".

 

So, to recap: first you guys complained that there was no NUDE category/warning. Now that Photo.net bent over to please you and put a warning of nude photos, you complain that some of the highest rated pictures are nudes.

 

Sheesh... What's going to be next, high heels? HOw about closeups of lips, is that taboo as well? What are you guys going to come up with next? I have seen so many posts about this is incredible...and this is a PHOTO site!

 

I can certainly look at beautifully manicured hands and...get ideas. I think I should be "free" to have all pictures of beautifully manicured hands clearly marked as such so "I can be free" not look at them. I forgot, my employer (my alter ego) explicitly FORBIDS all pictures of hands with RED nail polish as he retains it is too erotic & suggesting. So, can we please have a BIG warning like "WARNING, BEAUTIFULLY MANICURED HANDS WITH RED NAIL ENAMEL - DO NOT OPEN IN FRONT OF YOUR BOSS OR CO-WORKERS". Sarcastic? Yes but, what is the difference? As the saying goes different strokes for different folks.

 

The point I am trying to make is why is your view of nude MORE important than someone's view of hands? After all, it is eroticism we talking about.

 

I respect everybody's view EXCEPT those who want to force theirs onto ME.

 

Well, I have to go now. I just did a shoot of 3,560 nude pictures and I need to start editing them so that I can post them all by next week... :)

<b>In the mind of the beholder</b><p>It's perhaps understandable if spotty adolescents confuse nudity and pornography, forgive them for it's not their fault, raging hormones rule. For anyone else (including employers) there's just no excuse. Nudity per se has little to do with eroticism let alone pornography. As an adolescent I spent many years in life drawing classes and the only arousing feature of the classes was the company of many very attractive fully clothed female students.

<i><blockquote> Umm.... </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Umm yourself: :-)<p>

 

<u><A href = http://snipurl.com/7up1>

http://www.google.com/

search?num=50&q=shakespeare+quotations+%22there%27s+more%22&btnG=Search

</a></u>