Cover nude images

<p>I look at photo.net mostly to see naked women ;-) and get some inspiration for my work<br>

Since some weeks, I experience strange behavior when I look at nude picture, even after I modify my setting in my workspace [Cover nude images: disable | <a href="/pvt/toggle-nudes-filter-pref">enable]</a><br>

Everytime I back in this site and look at some picture, I have to enable/disable/reenalbe/redisable this setting to see directly the pictures without the annoying WASP anti-freedom of thought and anti-freedom of information veil. <br>

SO, my remark, it's that I will love to see this bug repaired, <br>

Thank you</p><div></div>

<p>Well, without the hyperbole ;-) it is kind of annoying, every time I log on, to have to go to my account options and toggle enable/disable to reset the nude cover options, when everything else in accounts options remains the same...</p>

<p>Edit: Bad boy! Where is your father?</p>

<p>I experience the same browser behavior,r and it's extremely annoying. It's also unfair to those who take wonderful nude images and then viewers like me have to jump through what seems like endless hoops just to see them.</p>

<p>I agree, please fix it. This occurs regardless of whether I use I.E. or Chrome, but I haven't been browsing PN with any other browser.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>I experience the same browser behavior,r and it's extremely annoying. It's also unfair to those who take wonderful nude images and then viewers like me have to jump through what seems like endless hoops just to see them.</p>

<p>I agree, please fix it. This occurs regardless of whether I use I.E. or Chrome, but I haven't been browsing PN with any other browser.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>I wouldn't cal this image as a "Child at Play". I would cal, the worst example of a child manner, reflecting a missing good education or a good example of the society or parents.</p>

<p>Why does this never happen to me? Something wrong with your cookie setting?</p>

<p>Dear <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=831118">Bela Laszlo Molnar</a> I respect your opinion, but as a humanist, I will said this child, mine, express his opinion and feeling.<br /> let your inner child speak, don't let the conditions of worth based on a morale dated from bronze age telling you how to react.</p>

<p>Dear <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2403095">Starvy Goodfellows</a> It's happen unindependant of my browser and platform. I use 3 differents browser on Android and on my Linux desktop. I suppose this elements are server side managed .</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's not happening to me with Chrome under Mavericks on an iMac but nudes do get covered when I use Firefox. </p>

<p>My favourite bug in the, <em>veil of wasps,</em> continues to be the fact that nude images appear unblocked, in all of their moral corrupting splendor, provided that I look at them in the critique forum lineup. However if I am tempted by their nakedness to click on the image, I am directed to the members portfolio where I am now blocked from seeing the nude image which I've already seen just a moment ago in the critique forum? Gotta love the brain police.</p>

<p>Reading all comments, I was thinking why someone in photo.net staff want to impose they religious morale to whom are looking at this site. If people are shocked by nudes pictures they just have to look somewhere else. period.<br>

It's like, someone tell you, your wife need to have a veil on her hair because it's exiting me. Well, maybe you need some counselling or medical assistance, but do not impose your view to everyone.<br>

When, I first came here more than 10 years ago, it's was a free (like in right) place to share arts linked to photography paradigm.<br>

And the predominant photo/art section of this sites was the nudes pictures made by the founder of this site mr Philip Greenspun <br>

Like Billy Joel said in Piano Man Lyrics : "Man, what are you doin' here?", <br>

You're going to destroy the purpose of this site : sharing photographic art.<br>

Remember that in occidental art and also in oriental art, african art, and every art, even christian religious art (before Victoria's era) nude was the predominant form of art, you can see penis, breast, ass, name it in every church (of all religion) all over the wolrd (excluding maybe the USA and the late Muslim era church/temple).<br>

<br />Anyway, stop the censure in a art sharing place!</p>

<p>Denis,<br>

Study the ratings of the cable news channels in the States and you will discover that Fox surpasses the combined ratings of CNN & MSNBC. That tells you most of what you need to know. Ah, now about Mr Greenspun, well, that's another story. </p>

As one who doesn't' watch much cable news networks, I guess the ratings are to show me that Fox is far superior to CNN & MSNBC?

<p>@Jim & @James, I'm sorry, I don't know the content of FOX or MSNBC, and I only know CNN by the web and movie about it,<br>

Maybe, if you tell me about it I will understand why the Smithsonian Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC, hide the art with frontal nude male ;-) <br>

when I go in the USA, i only listen to espn-latino in the evening to see some european footbal with these "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL" from the commentator, even if I don't understand spanish, that to much !</p>

<p>With no judgement as to whether it is better to be narrow-minded or broadminded, suffice it to say that Fox tends to appeal to the former. </p>

I doubt if there is more nudity shown on Fox than on the other news networks to give them such higher ratings. So that is not telling me (or Denis) what we need to know. I suppose all US news networks are equally narrow minded when it comes to nudity. I fail to see how watching Fox news is going to tell Denis most of what he needs to know about art and nudity. I think I found why FOX news is so popular and it doesn't have anything to do about nudity:

 

<p><strong>Watch what you say!</strong> I thought we weren't supposed to view our opinions about anything once they got rid of the Off-Topic forum. You better be careful what you think and say or this forum will be gone, too.</p>

<p>James, <br>

Why do I have this queasy feeling that I am being baited? In the unlikely event that this is not the case, let me try to spell it out a little more succinctly.<br>

Some significant portion of PN users have a problem with nudity or PN would not go to such great lengths to protect them from it. Many viewers of Fox News tend to be individuals who profess to believe that nudity in any form is pornography. One of their political heros from recent years is John Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the USA, who put drapes over the Spirit of Justice statue in the Department of Justice's Great Hall because the figure displayed contained unclothed portions of the female anatomy. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm).<br>

Why do so many Fox female news presenters display a lot of T, A & L when they generally espouse objections to anything that might vaguely be perceived as pornography? I suspect Rupert Murdock, Roger Ailes and these ladies figured out that sex sells despite what people profess to believe. Hasn't that been the case throughout history? <br>

So all I am saying is that a significant percentage of Fox news viewers profess to object to nudity (much more so than the viewers of other cable new networks) and that PN members who object to nudity more likely than not watch Fox news rather than CNN or MSNBC. <br>

Again, this is not a judgement against those who object to nudity, just an explanation of why it is an issue among a segment of PN members. </p>

<p>Jim, with all due respect, which, admittedly, usually translates to "with absolutely no respect at all and, in fact, with utter disdain", except in my case when I mean it sincerely... horse hockey. Cow patties. Meadow muffins.</p>

<p>Seriously, you're conflating a poorly designed filter with some sort of political stance. Utter rubbish. I can think of some avowed conservatives here on photo.net who enjoy pix of nekkid chicks as much as anyone. I won't name them because they might actually publish those rumored pix of Ann Coulter's naughty bits. And I don't mean her adam's apple.</p>

<p>Every mainstream photography sharing site has a nudity filter, or has tried to implement some form of a nudity filter, usually to the same chorus of yays and nays. Flickr, 500px, photoSIG, you name it - last time I checked any of those sites (a few months ago), all appeared to implement some form of a nudity filter. And members of those sites jump to the same mistaken pile of bull effluence that the puritans have taken over and are putting blurry pixel pasties over the nudie cuties.</p>

<p>The only real problem is that photo.net's current implementation of the nudity filter is an awkward mess. That's a valid complaint. It's dysfunctional and there doesn't appear to be any convenient way to bypass having to make multiple clicks to confirm "YES, I WANT TO SEE BOOBIES! STOP MAKING ME BEG FOR MY PIX OF NAUGHTY BITS!"</p>

<p>But conflating this into some sort of puritanical stance is just nonsense. There is no shortage of nekkid bodies on photo.net, some of which really push the limits of the existing policies but since I find the nekkid human body to be perfectly natural and generally of clinical interest, I don't care one way or another despite my having voted for Reagan in a moment of misguided whimsy years ago.</p>

<p>BTW, I apologize if my frankness came across as rude. I actually have no direct knowledge that photos of Ann Coulter's adam's apple actually exist. But she does have huge feet and <a href=" hands</a>.</p>

<p>It's well known that Americans are likely to be driven insane or turned into ravenous beasts by the slightest glimpse of a naughty bit. Europeans are pretty much immune to this effect for some reason, but in the interests of the Americans who suffer from this affliction, photo.net has to protect them from their own selves. Who knows what problems they could develop by looking at normally hidden parts of the human anatomy.</p>

<p>That's certainly true of American cats. I know what would happen right now if there wasn't a window between my prematurely fertile <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1059915">Eartha Kitty</a> and her would-be paramours outside. More Eartha Kitties. I don't hate naughty bits or sex. But I do hate the nightly Romeo and Juliet balcony scenes. When cats do that scene, it doesn't sound anything like we studied in drama class.</p>

<p>Actually Lex, I was probably doing a little baiting of my own and there were no takers. As probably the only one on this site who dropped out of college in 1968 to work in Nixon's campaign, I feel I worked harder for my conservative credentials than most, although I traded them in the late 80's to support Gary Hart who turned out to have a bevy of babes stashed somewhere in the Bahamas or the Caribbean. <br>

As tolerant as I may appear to be about nudity, I have, in fact, complained to PN management and to photographers here about images that sexualize underage children as I have had some direct experience in seeing the highly adverse effects such treatment has on them. During the early days of PN (the good old days?) I seem to recall that there was a fair amount of S&M, bondage, homosexuality, and fetish photography. The photographers who posted such material seem to have been weeded out over the years. I am not sure how this was accomplished. I was certainly appalled by such photography unless a particular fetish happened to arouse me!<br>

So, I doubt that there will ever be a solution that everyone agrees with. However, if I was running PN (a frequent fantasy), I would make a nude image available with one click rather than the two that are currently required.<br>

For those Europeans who are puzzled by all this, just remember that you sent us the Puritans and some other sects who ingrained America with apprehensions about nudity and sexuality. This character defect(?) is gradually being corrected by the influx of Latin Americans into the USA despite efforts by some political elements to send them back to Africa or wherever it was they came from. <br>

BTW, I understand that later this year Playboy magazine will be doing a photo spread later this year titled, 'The Babes of Cable News'. Rumor has it that it will be 'dominated' by ladies from Fox. (The last you'll hear from me on this thread. I am off to view my collection of Adam's Apple porn.)</p>

<p><em>"I seem to recall that there was a fair amount of S&M, bondage, homosexuality, and fetish photography. The photographers who posted such material seem to have been weeded out over the years. I am not sure how this was accomplished. I was certainly appalled by such photography unless a particular fetish happened to arouse me!"</em></p>

<p>Guilty. (But not weeded out.)</p>

<p>I'm advocating a "cute kids" filter, but then again my appall-o-meter is all out of whack.</p>

<p>Perhaps the only thing that is better than "naughty" pictures is "naughty" videos, but that is for a different site. I can't say I like all "porn" because I have yet to see all of it. I'm not really sure what porn is. I guess it is whatever you don't like? I am old, but not yet dead.</p>

<p>Parents and most schools have corrupted kids a lot more than looking at a little "porn." Give them "porn" over violence any day. OK, I know you can combine the two -- whatever flips you skirt works for me.</p>

<p>The option to block nude photography is a work in progress and definitely has bugs - they are on our radar. <br />It isn't simple at all and depends on cookies and appropriate tagging by users. It will be much more smooth in the redesigned site that is in progress everyday right now.<br /> <br /> The general act of taking steps to be able to hide nude photography isn't censorship or meant to be a form of anti-freedom, though to some of you, I'm sure it is annoying.<br /> <br /> Instead, it is actually intended to give people the right to choose, because there are just as many people that actually don't wish to see nude photography for many different reasons that have been talked about quite a bit in the last 6 months or so. Nude photography is an important photographic genre and photo.net would never want to eliminate such an artistic part of the craft we all love. However, those who don't want to see nude photographs shouldn't be forced to either and so their needs must be addressed as well. As Lex mentioned, pretty much every photo site I've been on allows their users to choose to see nude photography or not. <br /><br />It doesn't work perfectly at all right now, but there is something in place for the newly designed site that will allow you to, with checking or unchecking a box once, choose your settings regarding nude photographs here on pnet. <br /> <br /><br /></p>