alethea_hollis Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 I have notified abuse@photo.net but have received no reply or action, so is porn allowed then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindsay_robb Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Everyone renames it as 'glamour photography' and suddenly its allowed. Just makes sure it looks a bit 'artsy' and never use the word 'porn' and I'm sure no one will say a thing. How come I've never seen any 'glamour photography' involving men? The idea of trying to make a naked man look sexy on film when you are alone with him in a studio is maybe not quite so appealing to little boys (includes ages 14 to 84) with cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 one man's porn, another mans art...with that in mind, i will volunteer to be the guy who determines what's porn and whats art.... all those in favor say "I"....those not in favor, we'll im not counting you anyway..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 i personally think that 98% of art nudes/glamour photography, whatever, is an absolute crock. I look at a lot of porn, and I don't see much of a difference betwene the stuff Domei and Most Erotic Teens produces and the stuff I see here that is being passed off as "art". Not all of it, but a pretty good number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Alethea, How are you defining "porn"? please be as direct in your language as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 If you have reported an example of pornography to abuse@photo.net, you should receive an answer eventually. It is possible that the moderator is taking the weekend off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niels_de_boissezon1 Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 The intent of a picture is what matters! Whether you think a picture is obscene or not is not the point - the point is: what was the photographers intent while taking the picture? If it is to make you masturbate - then it is porn and hence it does not belong here. But if it is to depict some sides of our lives where nudity is involved(i.e. sex...) it is "real" photography and hence does belong here. Whether it is of good quality or taste is then open for discussion and you are free to give critique. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Stein Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Here is the communication from the abuse department. I have not been taking the weekend off, although I have chosen not to devote all of it to the many photo.net complaints I am looking into. I am a little tired of the way people seem to think that I can respond in microseconds to all the complaints I get. I always try to take a little time to look into the matter in some detail so that I can give a reasoned response. Ms. Hollis is complaining about two photos recently posted; I think I have found them, although she was not very informative in her complaints. I looked at them, and I feel that they are provocative but not porn. I note that her complaints are the only ones I have received about these two pictures, and I was waiting to see if I would get any more complaints about them. I therefore am not considering these photos to be porn, but I am willing to throw this discussion to the membership. I hope that this will result in some sort of votes for or against the proposition that one or both of these are porn, but I know better how photo.net folks are likely to respond. However, the two photos are: #1871851 and #1867812. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 How does one search for these photos? ; the search box shows no hits for these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
continuity Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Well, FWIW:<p> <A href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1871851">photo 1 </a><br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1867812">photo 2 </a> <p> Personally, they don't look like pr0n to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 The old discussion comes back�. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004qys The definition of pornography is "Porn is sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." The definition of explicit is "free from all vagueness and ambiguity, externally visible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 The images Jeremy posted links to wouldn't fall in my definition of porn, but they are poorly executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 And will someone please put clothing on all those damn animals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Site users have to remember that 95% of the site moderation is done by unpaid volunteers. Nobody is "on call" 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. With regard to these images, in my opinion they are not pornographic. However I think they are perfect examples of why photo.net really needs some sort of content labeling, image rating or restricted access areas. I have no problems with either image, but I can see how some people might have - and I can certainly see why someone browsing photo.net in their lunch hour at work would NOT want these images popping up on their monitor if co-workers are looking over their shoulder. I'm not suggesting this because I have any problems with any images. I'm simply suggesting it because I feel it would be something that many members would welcome. I don't suggest we change our standards for what's acceptable either. Even with content rating or restricted areas, I'd still be in favor of removing anything pornographic. I realize content labelling has it's problems and I realize there are also issues with having restricted viewing areas. However in the long run my guess is that these problems will be less than those resulting from not doing anything. The longer we leave things the way they are, the more and more difficult it becomes to reclassify the old content (which would a herculean task even right now). There can NEVER be perfect, 100% certain, filtering of images which could be regarded as "PG-13" or "R" rated and we should never try to "sell" the site on that basis. However I still think that imperfect rating of images is better than no rating at all. I'd favor a checkbox for users which basicaly said "If this box is checked you will not be shown any image that the photographer has rated as "adult" content, however you may still see such images if the photographer has failed to assign such images an "adult" rating" Moderators would be able to add "adult" ratings to images and photographers deliberately ignoring requests to so classify their images would be restricted from posting further images. It's not my call, so this is just my personal opinion and does not reflect any association I may have with photo.net. I'm just speaking for myself here. It would be a significant amount of work and I'm not sure how high it should come on the priority list. It's certainly not an "urgent action required" item right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfimages Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Is it possible to have a guideline when posting images (especially to photo critique) that you have to state in the subject line that it includes nudity. Obviously, it couldn't be enforcable due to the number of images posted daily, but I think that the majority of us are honest enough to follow it, if it were a guideline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 I'm not sure how much help that would be. I think most people use pages that provide thumbnails rather than text links. It couldn't hurt though. It could be done automatically if we had a "nudity" check box or a "nude/glamour" category for images. The downside of that is that I don't think we particularly want photo.net to be a site where you can just go and look at the nudes. That's really not the audience we want to attract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmee Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I don't see anything particularly artistic about either photo. The first one is very poorly photographed. I suppose there are people who want to see this and consider it 'erotica' perhaps. I agree, entirely, with Bob. Let's have the check box on each of our homepages to say whether or not we wish to see 'adult' material. And, as said, anyone not complying with the 'adult' designation of nudes of any kind or other explicit material, should not be allowed to post again. This would certainly lessen the load of emails about it to Jeremy, I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Can someone point to a photo containing a single nude woman, without accessories in hand or elsewhere, that's without question, porn? <br><br>It would seem to me that if one was unable to find such a photo that we can all agree on, then there will never be one that'll be considered porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Okay, let me make a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1455902" >first suggestion</a>, although there is an accessory attached. Can we all agree this is porn? Or is it just in bad taste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikos Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I would call it bad taste. But then again, if you come to think about it, the closest consensus definition you can give to porn is "erotica done with bad taste" So, in that sense, I *could* say, by that definition, and by *my own personal standards* of taste, that *I* would call it porn. But you see, there is too much subjectivity involved in all this. Why waste our time trying to quantify and formalize things that ought never be put in gridlines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anna_f Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 anyone who would think those are porn, obviously has not seen a lot of porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindsay_robb Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I've seen a lot of porn and that definitely IS porn. Whether it is the type of porn you like is a personal preference of course. This definitely qualifies as soft porn. I don't know about anyone else but I find that my fingers don't generally navigate their way to these areas of my body unless I'm in the shower (and I see no water in these pics) or I'm thinking about sex. Despite what I've sure lots of men would like to believe! Here's a question: If the pictures were of a guy wanking, would everyone agree that was porn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
og Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Instead of saying "porn", where you expect an absolute definition, you should use "offensive" (hope my english is ok...), usually related to someone's Point of view. Those first two pictures are not offensive to me, the third one might be. I am very surprised to see how people easily say "poor work" to those (potentially) offensive pictures, which are obviously not snapshot, when what they really mean is "I don't like this picture". To me, seeing too many uninteresting snapshots may become more offensive than seing those previous linked pictures. So, maybe you should create a "potentially offensive" check, that should include 'porn' (and do me a favor: include also 'boring family snapshot' in it : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Let's assume you don't consider this porn. Let's also assume you wouldn't be the least bit concerned if your children, spouse, coworkers, etc., happened to look over your shoulder while these images were on the screen. Instead, let's ask 'can you imagine that there might be a considerable number of viewers of this site for whom viewing these images would be a problem?" If you can, why not mark those images for their sake. . . . and please don't let the cache of older images stop anyone from seriously considering this proposal. The vast majority of images viewed on this site are recent uploads. Surely some moderator can go through the older top rated sorts and mark the dozen or so images that they find. If you want to visit someone's portfolio who specializes in these images, you're on your own. . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s_e Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Photo.net is a great site if it wasn`t for all the nude photos. Another site I used to visit I proposed in a forum like this that you could label all your own photos when you upload, and that each visitor could specify if one would like to filter off for example nude photos. Why force people to watch something they don´t want to see? I´m sure nothing will change in this subject on this site, so I´m removing my stuff and move on to some other site that has more strikt rules on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now