lex_jenkins Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 1. Too much "nudity...of woman and males"? Is there any other kind worth considering? 2. Nudity is not pornography as defined by the Supreme Court (taking into account local standards). Mere depiction of the human anatomy does not qualify. To qualify as pornography it should be explicitly sexual in nature. Penetration of certain orifices almost certainly qualifies. Two or more persons (or a person and an animal) making contact with genitalia probably qualifies. It's debatable whether contact between humans and mollusks qualifies, tho' undoubtedly someone has tested the theory. 3. Not all pornography is "trash" despite the usual dismissive remarks of at least one person every time this issue arises. Some pornography shows far better photographic skill than a lot of what I see on photo.net. 4. If there really was any good porn on photo.net I wouldn't have to waste time looking for it elsewhere on the web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Autopsy photos are often abit nude; but here the problem is they are abit graphic; sometimes one will loose ones hunger for lunch; after printing some horrible images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_bingham Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 This is a photography site. It was originally configured to benefit photographers. It still does. It is arguably the best photography site on the entire net. Certainly the most visited. Nudity has always been a part of photography and art - since the very beginning. And it rightfully should be a part of this photography site. Why on earth should nudity be banned just to please some employers? This certainly would not benefit photography. Whenever I see a photograph that displeases me - for whatever reason - I simply leave. It takes less than a second. We all choose what we wish to look at. I personally wish not to look at pictures of violence, starving children, war, or boring snapshots. But I certainly would not ask that they be banned. They are a real part of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissa_eiselein Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 <i>"For anyone else (including employers) there's just no excuse."</i> <p>I must respectfully disagree. There's more to this issue than morality. There are legal aspects involved. <p>I don't know about other countries, but here in the US there is a growing trend toward politically correctness. Employers have been sued for a multitude of "sexual harrassments" committed by their employees. Sexual harrassment suits can arise from a nude photo being viewed on the Internet, from a written joke with sexual inneuendo or a conversation about sexual orientation. <p>More and more companies, including where I work, are sending their employees through mandatory sexual harassment training. We even had to sign a form saying we attended and understood what was expected of us. I'm sure they do this so they can sit back and say, "We told him/her not to do it, so sue him/her and not us." <p>I'm not saying that employers like political correctness any more than the next guy. I'm just saying that legal issues are a reality when it comes to pornography, nudity, sexuality, gender, age, disability, race, religion, (insert your word here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.wind-upbird Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Of course nobody's forcing me to be here. Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. (to Giampiero) You're the one who was first to start talking about people forcing people to do things. Please don't try to put words or intentions in other people's mouths (or keyboards) or minds. If nudes are separated from the general set of thumbnails that comes up on the gallery, tell me who isn't free to go look at them if they want? People of differing sensibilities can be accomodated without anybody having to compromise their values. That's freedom. Let it ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Well it's my guess that Brian was right when he suggested that the existance of a "Nudes" category will make the nudes easier to find, therfore increase their visibility, therfore push them to the top of the TRP - given that even a fairly bad nude gets a good rating, therefore increase the likelyhood that when you browse thr TRP, you're going to see a lot of nudes. My guess is that "Nudes" will be the #1 visted category. Brian has the stats to see if that's the case. So my guess is that you'll be seeing more nudes in the future, not less. Most of them won't be porno, but some might be if they sneak in before a moderator can remove them. This isn't a problem for me, but I can see it getting photo.net onto more "banned" lists. I don't know what the solution is. If you have nudes category, there's no sense in not being able to view it or search on it. I suppose there could be two top pages, one "with nudes" and one without, though I don't suppose that would make much difference to those who want to filter out sites (not pages) with nudity. Most of those don't care if the nudity is right there on the top page or if it needs a single mouse click to get to it. It would help those who are personally upset by nudes, but would not help with censorship software or corporate viewing policy. They typically don't allow you top go the the Playboy website if you promise only to read the articles.... At this moment the TRP is 50% nudes or semi-nudes and I expect that will continue to be true. I don't see photo.net becoming a porno site, because of moderation, but I can see potentially more work for the gallery moderators and some difficult decisions drawing the line between porn and art, something even the courts have trouble with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidfink_photography Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Bob Atkins wrote: "...censorship software or corporate viewing policy...typically don't allow you to go to the Playboy website if you promise only to read the articles..." Exactly. So there is no way, short of banning nudes entirely, to satisfy completely (pun intended) those who work in "politically correct" (sic) environments and still expect to be able to browse sites like photo.net. Until U.S. society's moral/political/litigious attitudes progress to a more rational standard (I wouldn't hold my breath), you'd be best advised to keep artistic interests entirely separate from your workplace. Attempts to force photo.net to conform to a politically correct "sanitized" standard are bound to be futile. At least I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I've always thought the Top Rated page is nothing more than an equivalent to the Top 40 listings on radio stations. Usually not much creativity and when something becomes popular you see a lot of copy cat versions until something else becomes popular. Now with the influx of nudes the TRP has become even less relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 It isn't actually the case that nudes get higher ratings than other categories. But they do get more views and more ratings than other categories, and we may have made that difference more pronounced now by creating a category for Nudes, making them easier to find. If you look at the Top Photos ranking by "Average" rating, there aren't any nudes on the first page right now. But there are quite a few, more than I can remember for quite a while, on the first page of the NUmber of Ratings ranking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_laban Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 <i>"but here in the US there is a growing trend toward politically correctness</i><p>...toward politically correctness??? Anyways, fcuk em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 <b>NOBORU</b> you say to me<i>"You're the one who was first to start talking about people forcing people to do things. Please don't try to put words or intentions in other people's mouths (or keyboards) or minds"</i> <br> <br> so, in case you forgot what you typed here's a quote from your original post to which I replied: <i>"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."</i> <br> <br> Being that we are all reasonable adults here, can you please, explain WHO and HOW is going to give you the "freedom to be exposed to only the non-nude photos" while you "peruse this site"? You know VERY well that you are asking Brian to put HIS time, NOT yours, into extra programming to satisfy your "freedom" request. You are also asking us the Photographers to take EXTRA time while uploading pictures to check the appropriate box. If that's not FORCING people to do what YOU want I don't know what is. Simply because you used a a subtle way of exposing the thought it doesn't mean for a second that the intended results are any different than forcing people to do what you require. For no other reason than you don't want to look at nudes. <br> <br> I think I was pretty clear, I did not put any words or suggestions in anyone's mouth. I think YOUR suggestion was clear enough for anyone to see. <br> <br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 It's ridiculous to approach this issue based on what you are, or are not, allowed to see from your work computer. That's not Brian's problem. That's your problem. If you're at work, you should be working, not cruising the web. The same with your home computer. Kids don't want to see photographs anyway. They want to chat and play games. However, what is Brian's problem is the number of hits (and members) that will be lost from photonet being recategorized as a porn site, or whatever, versus the number of hits (or members) he will gain from that same categorization. Trying to accomplish change with respect to nudity on photonet based on morality, or religion, or work ethics is nearly pointless, considering especially that Brian is from Boston, and therefore most likely a left leaning liberal democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 uhh, I mean that in a nice way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 2:25 pm. I just went to the TRP and it appears the default has been reset to average ratings, not number of ratings. No nudes in the first three pages. If a search is performed for number of ratings, then they show up again, in all their titilating glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I still think that 'number of comments' as the default would bring commenting back a bit. All that a ratings TRP will bring along is ratings. Reward commenting and the comments will happen? Maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Umm... its called the Top RATED Pages, not the top commented pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 <b>Melissa</b><p> <i>I don't know about other countries, but here in the US there is a growing trend toward politically correctness.</i>. It's only in the US. It's another reason why grown-up countries laugh at you. <p> <i>. Sexual harrassment suits can arise from a nude photo being viewed on the Internet</i> Not unless your courts have finally released their fragile grip on reality. What one person looks at fleetingly on their screen does not harrass another. If they have a picture on the wall where you can't avoid seeing it, or even as their desktop wall paper that creates an uncomfortable environment. <p>Do we expect employers are to block <a href="http://www.louvre.fr/louvrea.htm">www.louvre.fr</a> click "selected works" and look there's some woman with her tits out. OK it's the Venus de Milo, but nudity is nudity right ? <p> It's about time employers used some common sense. (My HR rep has actually checked out the nudes in my portfolio, and she was complimentary about them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Well, if it goes that way, we can change the title of the TRP. We can make it better. We have the technology. But Dave's idea, as good as it is, will lead to a proliferation of useless comments and images appearing that are little more than running jokes among a few members, regardless of image content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Yeah, probably right Doug. I should have thought of that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 No Kidding . . . :-) The best solution might be a moving target. Why not change the default on a regular basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I think people focus too much attention on ratings in general, although I am not against them. I take Brian at his word when he says they are for the site & not for the photographer. I also find it ammusing that people here on the feedback forum want to somehow force people to comment. Personally, my most productive comments that I give fall between those who I rate 3-5 because I can see the worth in the photo and what I would personally do to improve it. 1-2 & 6-7 is harder for me to leave any kind of constructive comments other than praise or "I don't like it at all" type comments which don't really help either way. Its kind of silly for people to force me to say so when it really doesn't pertain to image improvement. As far as nudity goes, many fine artists have represented the nude time & time again & I doubt most people except fundamentalists would object to their children seeing these paintings & sculptures. I don't see why photography should be any different or held up to a different moral code. However, it seems that a lot of people like to lable mediocre photography that is anything but divine & closer to exploitation than anything else as art to justify their fascination. However, who draws the line of what is art, what is porn & what is a boobie shot? The USA is very puritanical & hipocritically so (I say this as an American). At the same time, some other nationalities view a 14 year old as an adult, so once again it comes down to culture. Who is right & who is wrong? I trust Photo.net (Brian & moderators) to draw an appropriate line that does not stray too far one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Now that images containing nudity are being categorized, the next reasonable then to do would be to allow the visitor an *option* of blocking all of those nude images if he or she wishes. This way the people that do wish to view those images containing nudity will still be capable of doing so. And at the same time, those that wish not to view images containing nudity will now have that option available. This would be a win-win in my opinion, since everybody would have the ability to do exactly what they want. You should not lose any of the visitors that appreciate posting/viewing nude images, plus you will now attract new visitors that purposely stayed away because of the nude images throughout. Yes it is true that the older images are not categorized, and that beyond the default TRP (anything older than 7 days) there will still be nudes throughout. But this could be clearly stated when the person chooses to use the *No Nudes* filter. Simply put, you would be creating more options for all sides of the issue. That cannot be a bad thing, can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuck Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 <I>Umm yourself: :-)</i><P> <B>There's</b> (there is) more reasons?<P> There <B>are</b> more reasons.<P> There, <B>that's</b> (that is) better.<P> I don't think that <B>there's</b> (there is) a contraction for <B><I>there are</b></i>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I think the TRP defalt to average instead to total ratings is an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 The only reason you think that, Skully, is because you're unfamilair with common alternate usage for cernturies. Police, even grammar police, often don't know the rules they're enforcing.... 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