Filtered gallaries?

[dougityb]

I'm not a prude. I click on many of the nudes here. But my 8 year old daughter is a prude, that is, if the definition of prude is someone who doesn't want to see naked people. So's my 12 year old daughter. And my wife. And my father. They're both prudes by this definition.

 

I've never seen the word prude used in any other way except as a sneering, derogatory remark. Modest might be a better word. Or conservative. Or puritan. Or moral, or virtuous even. It's arrogant to class anyone who doesn't want to see pictures of naked people as "prudish." Arrogant and narrow minded. Sorry.

[gerald_widen]

There should be some kind of filter. As shown other sites can do it why can't(wont't)us. Are they smarter, do they have more technical expertise? If we can't figure it out why can't we contact those sites and ask. Or is it we don't want to? If it is the policy of the site that it craves or needs nudes for whatever reason and has <i> no intention of ever changing</i> then <i>just say so</i> and be done with it. We can save bandwidth for this discussion for something else. It will still be a good site. I will still use it I just won't be able to share with or use the site when my younger children are around. And people wanting to do photography research at high schools or libraries won't be able to. Again not a big deal it will still be a useful site for us adults. Let the kids wait. They wait to vote,drive and drink they certainlly can wait to use the site.

[._._z]

<i> if the definition of prude is someone who doesn't want to see naked people.

</i><p>

 

Stop guessing and consult a dictionary. I use the words I mean to use. If you want to

call yourself modest, fine. But modesty is not the same thing as prudishness, Doug.

[vincetylor]

PRUDE: One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous.

 

[French, short for prude femme, virtuous woman : Old French prude, feminine of prud, virtuous; see proud + French femme, woman (from Latin fmina. See feminine).]

 

Word History: Being called a prude is rarely considered a compliment, but if we dig into the history of the word prude, we find that it has a noble past. The change for the worse took place in French. French prude first had a good sense, �wise woman,� but apparently a woman could be too wise or, in the eyes of some, too observant of decorum and propriety. Thus prude took on the sense in French that was brought into English along with the word, first recorded in 1704. The French word prude was a shortened form of prude femme (earlier in Old French prode femme), a word modeled on earlier preudomme, �a man of experience and integrity.� The second part of this word is, of course, homme, �man.� Old French prod, meaning �wise, prudent,� is from Vulgar Latin prdis with the same sense. Prdis in turn comes from Late Latin prde, �advantageous,� derived from the verb prdesse, �to be good.� Despite this history filled with usefulness, profit, wisdom, and integrity, prude has become a term of reproach.

 

As you can see your definition appears entirely made up. Your use of the word is obviously meant in a derogatory way as well. Fine...so what! Sticks and stones.......

 

THE ISSUES have been clearly laid out on the table now. It really is up to how you wish to address this Brian. You are the one with the authority to see if something can be done. I have also been around long enough to know that trying to, or even suggesting strong arm tactics is foolish and only makes things worse. Nobody wants to push you or Photo.net to do anything you do not want to do. What then we are trying to do, is ASK that you please put this issue on your table and see if there is something that YOU can implement which might help satisfy the many people who do want something done to help minimize the number of nude images in the gallery pages. As you know there are a large number of people interested in this isssue.

 

I also believe that membership will only increase as well once people find out they actually have a choice. More people, more memberships...a better site. THIS is not baloney...I hope you sincerely see what it is that can possibly be done. Thanks again for everybody's time and patience throughout these discussions. Aloha!

[._._z]

<i> As you can see your definition appears entirely made up. </i><p>

 

No, as we can see, you provided one online dictionary definition, then suggested

that I provided a definition (which I did not) which is made up. Rather, I invited

someone who called himself modest because he didn't want to see a naked form

prudish. <p>

 

If you can find me providing a definition somewhere in this thread, Vincent, please

quote it. Otherwise, chill out.

[vincetylor]

I see. You are correct, you were quoting what you thought was Doug's definition!...my apologies then. Although it also looks as if a portion of Dougs is correct..."modest, conservative".

 

The point is that you meant it in a derogatory manner...(and he was respnding to that). I do not think because certain people wish NOT to view nudes, they should be viewed in this negative light. A similar but opposite view then, would be that all that DO view nudes are perverted. Neither extreme views are really reasonable now are they?? That is why the suggestion of some type of filters could be a very happy medium.

[WJT]

And here is why. At my workplace, we are all adults and we all have done a lot of living. When I open the Gallery to see how my photographs are fairing, invariably there will be a handful of nude photographs alongside mine. And just as invariably, one of my colleauges will catch site of this and yell out across the room "HEY EVERYONE....WALT'S LOOKING AT SKIN SHOTS!" The end result is that a crowd develops around me and I then have to cater to all the requests to click on the nude photographs. Certainly a natural reaction, but all I wanted to do was spend a few moments of my hard-earned precious free-time on my own photographs.

 

My situation is analogous to the comment made by an educator in a previously posted thread on this same subject some time ago. He could not open the Gallery at his place of employment (a school) because of the interference that the nude content would create. Interference in not only the disruption in the concentration of the students, but also in the "perception" that the educator is looking at something deemed to be inappropriate at that time and place.

 

We are not asking for the cloistering of nude photographs. We are asking for a method to customize, if we so choose, our own view of the Gallery when we log on to the system; a method which would help to reduce the number of nude photographs in that view. This request is made with the understanding that, presently, system resources may not yet be able to accomplish this goal, but that in the future it will be possible. It is also made with the understanding that previously archived material may not be able to be filtered as efficiently as newly posted photographs. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

[._._z]

<i> The point is that you meant it in a derogatory manner </i><p>

 

Hardly. And I was not the first person in this thread to use the term.

[pahrkm]

If a filter were in place, the educator should still not open the gallery at school. As you said, previously archived material may not be filtered. And new material may not be classified correctly if the photography forgets to check a box.

 

The filter could create a false sense of security for those in a workplace where nudes are considered inappropriate.

[vincetylor]

Well Patty, rest assured that SOME filtering would certainly be better than none at all. It sounds like you are suggesting since you cannot guaranty every single image will be filtered out, then nix the idea altogether...which is just plain foolish. It would be much easier to navigate around a stray nude image here and there in a workplace, rather that what you currently see now! Agreed??

 

 

A CHOICE is a very reasonable request here.

[WJT]

To reiterate, we would not expect the filtering to be 100 percent effective. We are simply asking for a reasonable attempt, when feasible, for PhotoNet to empower its members with the ability to choose what they view. It could be implemented in many ways, but Mr Atkins suggestion along the lines of the "unmanipulated" check box would be an excellent start.

[kelly_flanigan1]

This is an interesting thread.; I wonder what my old Librarian "Miss Crowfoot" would say amount this matter?<BR><BR> In the 1950's TV always showed separate beds; even if they showed a master bedroom. One of my teachers/Librarian in school in the 1960's hated Kennedy's not wearing a hat in public; and considered an elected man without hat in public abit of a tramp. Our 1960's Librarian "Miss Crowfoot" would sensor LIFE, LOOK, National Geographic, Modern Photography, Popular Photography; etc with an Xacto knife; before allowing them to be displayed at the school Library. This caused us to seek out the uncensored copies; to see what the heck she cut out. Her mood varied; and sometimes she wasnt so hard core with the Xacto knife.<BR><BR> Many times good articles became unreadable; because the censored parts were disgarded. This was before Xerox machines were in Libraries; so there was not fixing the censored parts. Using a china marker was unthinkable; I'm not sure if sharpies were around/common in the early/mid 1960's.<BR><BR> Old "Miss Crowfoot" would cut/censor out her "bad"stuff. She attacked women with too much leg showing; ie above the knee. She cut out open views of womens backs; bikini's, bra ads, girdle ads; too racy poses.. On occasions she cut out photos of men that were too racy; or on odd occasions photos of men outside without hats. I remember reading several photo magazines that had decent articles on lighting; movies etc; and then had to buy the magazine; to get the rest of the article. Her censoring would cut out pieces of articles; because she spiced/diced the article thru all the back photo ads.<BR><BR> The adverts for recieving "undeveloped nude negatives" really sent her into orbit; she would often rip the entire page out; or cut thru several pages. We tended to focus on what "old Miss Crowfoot" cut out; because we wondered what she was censoring. When a magazine was really swiss cheesed; we headed directly to the local 5 and 10 cent store; to buy the uncensored Photo magazine.

[vincetylor]

Let me be a bit more direct here. Your illustration simply does not apply. I am interested in preventing the nude images from showing up on MY monitor. Where your example exaggerates this situation, is that NOBODY else, not one single person that wishes to see nudes is affected. Read my lips...Nobody else but me!!!! Is that now clear? If your librarian friend wishes not to see certain images that is her right. If she also is responsible for the material many inexperienced ones will look at, that too is reasonable. In our case we are only asking that individually, we have a choice to filter out nude images. Individually...one person here!

 

Let me also point this fact out. There are far too many images on this site that are simply not "artistic nudes" in my opinion. A man with an erection, a close-up of a womans anatomy. These (and many others) are offensive to many many people. Many of us simply want the ability to choose to filter these images out. It's very simple here, there is no need to complicate the issues with arguments that simply do not apply. If adding nude filters, means that all can have their cake and eat it too...then ALL win. It's not rocket science!

[pahrkm]

I wasn't suggesting that a filter was a bad idea because it wasn't foolproof. Having a filter in place wouldn't bother me at all. I simply wouldn't use it because viewing nudes doesn't bother me. But then, I use a computer at home and have no small children.

 

I was simply trying to say that if a person worked in a place where viewing of nudes were a no-no, that person should be aware that some nudes might slip through and could cause problems. I wouldn't want a false sense of security to cause someone to get fired.

[._._z]

<i> . If adding nude filters, means that all can have their cake and eat it too </i><p>

 

So does clicking past things you might find objectionable. (And I can Maud Flanders's

refrain now, "But think of the children! Will anybody think of the children!)

[WJT]

that was certainly a humorous anecdote about Miss Crowfoot. Thanks for sharing it, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion in this thread. Indeed, it is a reduction of the argument to the absurd, almost to a level that I find insulting. To repeat, no one is asking for increased censorship of a contributor's material (that is, beyond the guidlines already inforce by PhotoNet). We are simply asking for a method to allow an individual to choose what is presented on her or his own monitor.

 

It is incomprehensible to me why anyone with a modicum of intelligence, living in an ostensibly free society, would philosophically resist this request. I can appreciate the mechanistic difficulties in its implementation, but to blindly decry it as censorship is without credence.

[WJT]

thanks for responding to this discussion. I understood what you meant in your first post. It's a good point but I don't believe anyone would expect the filter to operate at 100 percent reliabilty. In fact, I would make it a prerequisite to its use that one would know of the potential for its failure.

 

By the way, I think your "Ethereal Dream" is a great photograph! Regards.

[michaelk]

Vincent I'm with you on this. I think a filter would be great. I have 2 younger kids and I like to show them some of the photos on here. I also like to surf PN at work but I have to be very careful.

I think starting a filter and asking people to check the nudes they have to be placed in that new category would be very nice of you brian. For us at work and with kids. I know it wouldn't work for a while but after 6 to 8 months the filter would probably work quite well. I think most would understand the reasons to have it. The work Nazis or kids or other reasons. It's not about censorship, I love a good nude ;-) but not at work.

[gerald_widen]

I'm with Michael above. I view and rate the nude photos when one strikes me but for those other times as Michael, and many many many others have stated a filter would be good. I just don't understand why not. It doesn't affect someone who doesn't want to use it. Once installed the site could <i>ask</i> that anyone with nudes in their files click the box or whatever process is implimented. This wouldn't take care of all of the old nudes but certainlly a good many. And any new ones going forward would be filtered. This issue constantly comes up this thread has been going on since last year. The issue obviously won't go away until it is resolved one way or the other.

[pahrkm]

The discussions in these forums were, in a very big way, the inspiration for the photograph. Freedom of speech vs. censorship, viewing nudes vs. a filter, ratings vs. no ratings. . . and so forth. Of course, photo.net is not a democracy so we must abide the decisions of the powers that be. The best we can do is put forth our opinions and hope they listen. I have to say, though, that I don't have any problems with the way the site is run. I would say, however, that I would prefer categories to a nude filter.

[._._z]

From the latest issue of <u>The Onion</u>: <p>

 

<i><b> <u> Grandmother Can't Believe They Let People With Tattoos On Price Is

Right </u> </b> <p>

 

GREAT BEND, KS�Grandmother of nine Sadie Grunfelder, 71, expressed surprise

Tuesday when a tattooed contestant was allowed to play "Buy Or Sell" on the long-

running game show The Price Is Right. "I can't believe that Bob Barker would let

someone with a tattoo up on stage," Grunfelder said from her recliner. "I would think

they'd at least make him cover up that terrible thing. What if there are children

somewhere, home sick from school, watching this show?" Luckily, Grunfelder's two

other means of access to the outside world�the AARP newsletter and reruns of Dr.

Quinn, Medicine Woman�remain tattoo-free. </i>

[aepelbacher]

Thank you, Vincent, for sticking to your guns on this issue. I absolutely support you here!

 

I am not one to argue semantics, as it seems has been done for a majority of this thread. I'll leave that to those of you who love to word pick. Let's just say that there ARE those of us out there who cringe when nudes come up on the screen.

 

The main thing I want to take issue with in this discussion is the idea of CHOICE. If I want to raise my children in a "prudish" way, that's my choice. If not, that's my choice, too. I appreciate Bob Atkins' comparison to the "unmanipulated" check-box as a possible solution. If only to reduce the possibility of seeing things that I don't choose to see. By the way, I CHOOSE Photo.net over the other photography sites in spite of the nude photos BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHY SITE OUT THERE. I realize that I could also choose to stop participating. I would miss out on a whole lot of learning in that choice as well. Wouldn't it be a perfect world if I could learn from what photo.net has to offer while at the same time not seeing photos of nudes if I don't want to.

 

[by the way ... that is NOT the same as looking at photos of kittens or of landscapes, etc. Why do we need to argue about such things?]

 

By the way, I am a school teacher who has links to my personal webpages at the bottom of my e-mail signature when sending e-mail from home. Any student or parent receiving an e-mail from me can click through to my portfolio, along with links to other hobbies of mine. Any images that my students may view upon subsequent clicks, in that case, would be a direct result of my actions. In that way, I am taking CHOICE away from the parents, which is ABSOLUTELY not my prerogative.

[WJT]

To begin, the subject is not well focused. Although an attempt is obviously being made to communicate an idea, his allegorical approach is confused and founders in a sea of his own deepseated misconceptions.

 

These misconceptions apparently stem from his adamantine position to refuse any consideration of the thoughts of others. Where understanding could be attained through maintaining what he himself champions, an openmind, only the antithesis of his goal is actually realized. Those ideas that do not rigourously follow lock-step with the artist's are dismissed. In essence, the artist achieves only a nearly paranoic flurry of fearful apocalyptic prognostications and offers, as justification, contrived hypotheticals.

 

His composition lacks balance. Were one to suggest a Golden Mean, he would only refuse it. To suggest a Rule of Thirds would be pure folly. To suggest an openness to any mediating common ground and the inevitable progress that would ensue would only be met by his resolute abhorance for change. On any level field, this artist would be doomed to failure, doomed by his own actions.

 

In conclusion, I rate the artist's comment 3 for Originality, 3 for Aesthetics, and ZERO for Understanding. Regards.

[kelly_flanigan1]

It all depends on what you want to censor. I happen to print nudes at work; and also print medical diagrams for attorneys; wrecked cars; dead bodies. The poor chap that had acid spilled on him; and all that was left of him was part of his bluejeans and wallet really was depressing to print trial posters. I agree that many here may want a filter that shuts out nudes. What bothers people depends on their age; upbringing; religion; etc. An old girl friend had no problems with seeing full frontal nudes; but had major problems when a womans open back was visible. A filter is a method of limiting ones viewing options. In some cultures viewing the bare bottom of a persons foot is considered very vulgar; alot worse that a typical nude.

[kelly_flanigan1]

I prefer to print nudes over a poor chap who got quashed in a punch press; or got dissolved with acid. The nudes dont bring sorrow. I wonder what other's feer about nudes is. Is it being caught at work; when you really should be working? Is it to protect you children? Is it a religous thing? What about graphical medical diagrams; showing a baby being born? What about a skirt above the knee; or an open back of a woman; or a bare foot? When working in non American countries; some that nudity in their broadcast TV; ie non cable stuff. Maybe here parents what their kids; and know how to use the TY selector knob; or on off switch. In the old days people used these tools; and did thei own filtering; instead of whining. Maybe a "prude/modesty" filter of say one to five could be done for "grey" images; that may offend some; but not others. Then chaps could rank whether the ratings are ok :)