X-rated pictures

[hjoseph7]

Is there any way to avoid these x-rated pictures, I got kids at home. 

 

 

***

(Moderator Note - originally published in "Site Help Forum")

[victor2]

Not meaning to open Pandoras box, but, please define x-rated. Where do we draw the line between "artistic nudes" and x-rated images?

I agree there are questionable images on this site and I do not mean to dismiss your concerns.

Some are in poor taste, exibicionist, porn like... but where is that line drawn and by whom?

 

 

[PapaTango]

I think cheesy is is more the term.  Those photos you are commenting on remind me mightily of those old "magazines" of the 50s and 60s--right down to the photo texture and coloration of those poorly printed "girly mags" that were treasures to teen boys and frustrated husbands everywhere...

Who likes looking at that first thing in the morning?  Well, at least for my age, not so much.  There seemed to be a solution in sticking post-it notes over them on the screen, but someone keeps moving them around--and it's whack-a-mole to keep moving the stickies around.  Now I just don't wear my readers when I look at PN, and everything appears to be covered by an NSFW blur.

No easy answers here photo fans...

[Ken Katz]

Describing the images as x-rated is a bit over the top, but I share your concern.  They are clearly NSFW, and having them on PN's front page is not helpful if PN is trying to increase traffic.  I would think that simply excluding the N&E gallery as a source of images for the front page would likely work.

[samstevens]

48 minutes ago, victor2 said:

but where is that line drawn and by whom?

By PN administration and, perhaps, moderators. Like the Supreme Court, there’s no definitive line but, generally, we know it when we see it. When does a molehill become a mountain or a few grains of sand become a pile?

Not all nudes are x-rated, certainly. PN’s terms once had it defined that depictions of sexual acts and other graphic sexual images were forbidden. I don’t know if the current terms address this. 

Many of PN’s nudes seem exploitive and/or merely prurient and/or in bad taste. But I don’t know that any of that has been or would be disqualifying. 
 

——————-

One solution would be that if you don’t want your kids to see them, block PN on their devices and don’t open PN in their presence ir when there’s a chance they’ll walk in. Perhaps limit viewing PN to when they’re asleep. 

[samstevens]

58 minutes ago, PapaTango said:

whack-a-mole

My imagination is wandering ! 😊

[PapaTango]

48 minutes ago, samstevens said:

My imagination is wandering ! 😊

You may be the only person here who actually got that...

[William Michael]

On 3/5/2023 at 12:47 PM, hjoseph7 said:

Is there any way to avoid these x-rated pictures, I got kids at home. 

The question is vague.

However, thanks to Papa's comments above, I note you've recently made comment on another Member's Album.

If you are referring to nude and partial nude images appearing on the "All Activity" page, then this might assist: 

As I understand, the NSFW function ("Not Suitable for Work" function) is not native to this (new) "Invision" platform which Photo.net now uses.

Presently, the partially adapted NSFW function fails on the images displayed at the front end - i.e. "All Activity" page.

My understanding is a fix is unlikely to happen in the near future. 

Therefore - specifically to the question of how to avoid your children viewing these images: that is under your control, according to how you choose your usage of and to whom you provide access to the Photo.net website.

***

To the other points raised:

19 hours ago, victor2 said:

I agree there are questionable images on this site and I do not mean to dismiss your concerns.

Some are in poor taste, exibicionist, porn like... but where is that line drawn and by whom?

On a day to day basis, the line is drawn by Moderators. The Owner or their delegate (formerly known as Editor-in-Chief) would direct as and when necessary.

18 hours ago, samstevens said:

PN’s terms once had it defined that depictions of sexual acts and other graphic sexual images were forbidden. I don’t know if the current terms address this. 

I believe such was stated under (the old) "User Guidelines". User Guidelines was referred to in (the old) "Terms of Use" as an adjunct to Terms of Use.

I believe "User Guidelines" no longer exists, however, depictions of sexual acts, graphic sexual images continue to be deleted. Members publishing same are still warned and if necessary banned. 

WW

     

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I'm with hjoseph7 in finding the 'nude & erotic' pictures from one recent poster tacky and dispiriting; but the photos don't actually show any more body than some other nude gallery posts (or with anything like the same clarity). I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to exclude photos based on ickiness, even if I could define icky. In any case, not all photography is supposed to be comfortable, and depicting something is not always the same as advocating it. This is pornography like the Cure's album 'Pornography': depressing and miserable.

It strikes me that these posts are extra-annoying because they are in a member's gallery. Every new photo posted re-displays the whole damn gallery as thumbnails in the 'All activity' view (there's a 'fine art' gallery that's been irritating me in just the same way. I wouldn't ban this stuff, though it ain't what I call photography; just don't want it shoved at me on repeat like that).

On the old photo.net site, I was only here for the discussion fora, and almost never saw the galleries; and I didn't miss them before I saw them. So I am trying out a new view (created under 'My Activity Streams') that only shows me 'topics' (that is, discussion forum posts, including ones with a photo, like 'No Words', but not gallery posts). I even left out a couple of the discussion fora: some of the conversations get tacky and dispiriting too!

 

[hjoseph7]

8 minutes ago, Dustin McAmera said:

I'm with hjoseph7 in finding the 'nude & erotic' pictures from one recent poster tacky and dispiriting; but the photos don't actually show any more body than some other nude gallery posts (or with anything like the same clarity). I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to exclude photos based on ickiness, even if I could define icky. In any case, not all photography is supposed to be comfortable, and depicting something is not always the same as advocating it. This is pornography like the Cure's album 'Pornography': depressing and miserable.

It strikes me that these posts are extra-annoying because they are in a member's gallery. Every new photo posted re-displays the whole damn gallery as thumbnails in the 'All activity' view (there's a 'fine art' gallery that's been irritating me in just the same way. I wouldn't ban this stuff, though it ain't what I call photography; just don't want it shoved at me on repeat like that).

On the old photo.net site, I was only here for the discussion fora, and almost never saw the galleries; and I didn't miss them before I saw them. So I am trying out a new view (created under 'My Activity Streams') that only shows me 'topics' (that is, discussion forum posts, including ones with a photo, like 'No Words', but not gallery posts). I even left out a couple of the discussion fora: some of the conversations get tacky and dispiriting too!

 

Thank you !  this is just what I was getting at. Actually there are no kids in my home unless they come to visit. I don't mind Nudes at all, if they are tastefully done,  with a purpose in mind, but this whole thing of throwing stuff out there willy-nilly just to get an illicit response is somewhat low-down and questionable. This is a Public site no doubt which means anybody can join, but so is the highway and public bathrooms. There are others out there you need to take into consideration. Some of that stuff belongs in somebody's personal or private gallery, not shared publicly like that. Go ahead call me an old fart !

[samstevens]

Tasteless seems an accurate description, not as much for the content as for the cartoon-like presentation and treatment. Looking at these against other nudes on the site, the presumably more “acceptable” nudes have little more than a veneer  of taste, because they’re presented in traditional black and white and are often of a trained and polished technical approach. Looking past that veneer reveals, to me, a still tasteless approach to women and to nudity. Rarely do I find PN nudes that come across as personal, meaningful, have a compelling edge (tasteless in the positive sense of cleverly or creatively defying current tastes), or otherwise draw me in for an inspiring or even challenging experience. So, while I might single these out for more blatant than usual and less than compelling style and technique, at least they don’t seem to be masquerading as fine art the way some of the other titillating and shallow nudes on PN seem to do so successfully, given their popularity and purported tastefulness.

I enter PN via a bookmark that takes me right to the forums. I see only photos embedded in the forums unless I choose to go to galleries, at which point I’m willing to see everything that’s been made available, quickly bypassing without bother what doesn’t interest or annoys me, which is more than tasteless nudes.

Edited March 6, 2023 by samstevens

[Tony Parsons]

To some people, even abstract nudes or B&P glamour images are 'filth, obscene and pornography', depending on their upbringing. 

[ericphelps]

I've no issues with nudes etc being included here, it's safer than discussions of what is art or just prurient. And. I have fond, very old, memories of being nude. But I haven't seen one here in the section that I'd ever want to view twice. They all seem either too artsy for no words, or just teenage stuff.

I'd stuff the section entirely until there was some value in it.

[William Michael]

6 hours ago, hjoseph7 said:

This is a Public site no doubt which means anybody can join,

That's correct. It is a Public Forum and in so far as "anybody can join" all who do guarantee that they are over 18 years of age and that they will maintain the confidentiality of their account and restrict access of their computer and/or account and they agree to accept responsibility for any and all activities or actions that occur under their account.

Therefore I return to the point, if you want to avoid these images for your own eyes the action to do so remains with you, some good options have been given here.

Similarly if you want to not allow children to see these images, then that is also determined by your actions 

WW

[hjoseph7]

52 minutes ago, William Michael said:

That's correct. It is a Public Forum and in so far as "anybody can join" all who do guarantee that they are over 18 years of age and that they will maintain the confidentiality of their account and restrict access of their computer and/or account and they agree to accept responsibility for any and all activities or actions that occur under their account.

Therefore I return to the point, if you want to avoid these images for your own eyes the action to do so remains with you, some good options have been given here.

Similarly if you want to not allow children to see these images, then that is also determined by your actions 

WW

I'll just ignore those pictures just like I ignore a lot of things these days such as gnats, and bugs. Years ago, I'm talking about 2001-2002, I joined this Facebook-like college chatroom while I was studying Photography. I joined this forum even though I was a Ringer. This site practically allowed you to say and post whatever you wanted including explicit pictures. Actually, it was only a couple of characters posting these type of pictures. Next thing you know, the site was being monitored by the Police. Two years later, the site was closed down by the owner...  

Edited March 6, 2023 by hjoseph7

[PapaTango]

Such things seem the course.  For many years, I have been an amateur radio operator.  As a matter of fact, that's where the Papa Tango comes from (AE1PT).  About 15 years ago, I became possessed with the idea of Slow Scan Television--aka SSTV.  Think a little less than the quality of a DOS CGA display, in monochrome--and you will have it.  Or that the average image (~10Kb) took about 2 minutes to send.  But the 'big idea' was that I could beam an image from my backyard over the open ether, and people in far countries could receive it.  And then whomever got it would send me one.  Yeah, ham radio is a bit peculiar...

After much work and expense to add the "heavy iron" required to do the job, I got on the air.  I was so surprised to find that every image being sent out by others consisted of barely discernable images identical to what this topic is about.  My attempts to start something different were always met with a response of ill-defined voluminous cuties.  

Take a fortnight forward, and I stopped fooling with the nonsense.  Nor have I ever looked back.

Maybe we should do the same?  😎

Edited March 7, 2023 by PapaTango
Space aliens made me do it

[hjoseph7]

"But the 'big idea' was that I could beam an image from my backyard over the open ether, and people in far countries could receive it.  "

 

Could these images be considered the UFO's people are talking about, I always wondered about that ?...

[John Peri]

Some sarcastic remarks have appeared recently in the forum regarding nude glamour work, both here and elsewhere. I guess it depends largely on whose opinion is expressed. My work appeals largely to heterosexuals (male and female) though one of my greatest fans is a transsexual friend who also figures somewhere in my work, though difficult to notice possibly, none of the clumsy high heels, exaggerated gestures and smothered makeup on the face, like some examples that have appeared in our pages.

Nude art, both male and female, whether in the form of painting, sculpture or  photography, is a legitimate medium and is present in galleries and museums all over the world (actually, you will find it in neolithic times also!). As long it corresponds to certain norms, I really don't see where the problem lies. Any responsible adult will take care to protect minors from what is inappropriate. That said, as a child, I was encouraged to peruse all forms of culture in order to develop taste and understand the difference between vulgarity and art. 

[hjoseph7]

2 hours ago, John Peri said:

Some sarcastic remarks have appeared recently in the forum regarding nude glamour work, both here and elsewhere. I guess it depends largely on whose opinion is expressed. My work appeals largely to heterosexuals (male and female) though one of my greatest fans is a transsexual friend who also figures somewhere in my work, though difficult to notice possibly, none of the clumsy high heels, exaggerated gestures and smothered makeup on the face, like some examples that have appeared in our pages.

Nude art, both male and female, whether in the form of painting, sculpture or  photography, is a legitimate medium and is present in galleries and museums all over the world (actually, you will find it in neolithic times also!). As long it corresponds to certain norms, I really don't see where the problem lies. Any responsible adult will take care to protect minors from what is inappropriate. That said, as a child, I was encouraged to peruse all forms of culture in order to develop taste and understand the difference between vulgarity and art. 

I see...

[kmac]

3 hours ago, John Peri said:

Nude art

There's no art in your nudes, they're just women with no cloths on, devoid of any artistic imagination going into the preparation of the posing and lighting.

[John Peri]

Kmac, I appreciate your opinion, thank you.

It's hard to define "art". Pollock poured paint on a canvas and threw a naked woman onto it. Yoko Ono on the other hand launched  over-ripe tomatoes at a canvas placed on the wall .. I guess there is imagination there, though of a weird sort in my opinion. I don't think it is the technique so much as the outcome that counts.

I have never been in a studio personally, I'm a glamour photographer, no less, no more, specializing in the girl next door. Some people may like it, others not, no problem. My coffee table books sell quite well actually, though I have often wondered whether I would buy one myself! 

[hjoseph7]

John Peri you are the premier Glamour photographer on this site and have been for years if not decades. Notice that I never complained about your style of photography because basically, it's Glamour Photography. 

[samstevens]

Thankfully, PN offers a diversity of opinions on pretty much every subject brought up. Sarcasm, too, often meant to elicit a reaction, is a legitimate and fairly common means of expression … obviously sometimes hitting its target on the nose. Many nudes here use the excuse of fine art but couldn’t be further from that mark. No, not Pollock and not Ono. Like them or not, Pollock and Ono were original and challenging. Most nudes here are the opposite, being of an expected and well-worn type. Schoolboy stuff in glossy black and white drag.

[John Peri]

Well Sam, there is an audience for both glossy and drag as I am quite sure you know .. 

I agree with what you say largely .. finally, live and let live, and vive la différence!

[John Peri]

On 3/6/2023 at 5:21 PM, Tony Parsons said:

To some people, even abstract nudes or B&P glamour images are 'filth, obscene and pornography', depending on their upbringing. 

I agree with you. This is not a judgment value, but people with a more favourable socio-economic background tend to be more tolerant and open minded .... however,  it is a cultural issue also .. religion, ethnicity, demographics also play a role.