"Your Privates" Revisited

[dazedgonebye]

Have you been to a porn site (which this image obviously is)? I'm not sure what the regulations are, but each and every one of them that displays images like this have disclaimers first of all. And secondly have potential viewers and members use a credit card to prove they are an adult.

If this is the type of site Slug and Emily want to run so be it. But please inform PBase members one way or another so different arrangements can be made for those that don't want their images mixed with such photos.

I have gotten a lot of emails from members expressing the same concerns. Artistic nudity is one thing... Sex acts are all together another. Where does it end? Or does it?

I agree with you. I just don't know how to fix it.

[cjburianek]

Have you been to a porn site (which this image obviously is)? I'm not sure what the regulations are, but each and every one of them that displays images like this have disclaimers first of all. And secondly have potential viewers and members use a credit card to prove they are an adult.

If this is the type of site Slug and Emily want to run so be it. But please inform PBase members one way or another so different arrangements can be made for those that don't want their images mixed with such photos.

I have gotten a lot of emails from members expressing the same concerns. Artistic nudity is one thing... Sex acts are all together another. Where does it end? Or does it?

I agree as well. I used to go through the PAD gallery photos with my son and now I'm afraid to... I have seen some which are artistically done and I don't mind those but most of what I've seen show up on th PAD gallery lately are just tasteless...

[hmetal]

I agree as well. I used to go through the PAD gallery photos with my son and now I'm afraid to... I have seen some which are artistically done and I don't mind those but most of what I've seen show up on th PAD gallery lately are just tasteless...

I haven't seen any tasteless photos in the meta gallery lately. Do you consider my photos tasteless? You can give it to me straight, no sugar coating. I can handle it.

As for children and nudity, come on now. I can see not allowing your children to be in the company of a nude stranger, which would absolutely freak me out and want to kill the stranger for not have some couth. However, I'm not in the group of paranoid, stifled, uptight people who think that a child seeing nudity scars them for life (or even for the next 30 seconds).

I ask people this question all the time: Do you have 2 children; a boy and a girl? Do you cover up the girl's eyes everytime the boy sheds his diaper or training pants or even if he is a budding nudist and just likes to be "free" and run around the house or yard?

I can recall more than one occasion where my neighbor's little boy came running out into their backyard "nekkid as a jay bird" and their little girl in the yard playing, not giving it a second thought. My wife and I laugh our asses off everytime this happens. The little tyke runs around his backyard playing on his Tonka trucks and not a care in the world. As it should be. Too bad there are so many perverts out there, making something dirty out of something so innocent and natural.

Anyways, back to the question..

Does the son & daughter situation ever happen with your children? That little boy has different parts than the girl but is she scarred for life because she's seen a boy's private parts? No? So, why the big deal when you come across a tasteful nude in the meta gallery?

I am a firm believer that one's children will only be as ashamed and sexually repressed as their parents train them to be. Of course, one should already have warned their children of the dangers and sexual predators that stalk our world. It's really sad that so many bad people (child pornographers, pedophiles, etc) have made us all turn nudity into a bad thing.

All arguments aside, I would personally have no problem toggling an option that signifies a photo contains nudity or implied nudity, if Slug made such an option on the photo upload form, as long as it does not affect my ability to choose what content I wish to have in my PAD. Also, I would never put explicit sexual acts (penetration) in a PAD.

[gpaai]

Hi Ray,

Ok, so it's no big deal seeing your neighbor's children running around outside without clothes. I agree, in certain tight knit neighborhoods this is pretty much tradition.

Now what if it were the adult members in the neighborhood running around, would that be acceptable? Do you shoot your images of Sharon in front of your neighbor's children?

It's a sad thing, but this is just the way society has become. If some pervert secretly shot images of your neighbor's children and those images ended up online on some kiddie porn sight, I'm sure it would be devistating if your neighbors were to able find out.

In the last week or so I, along with other PBasers, have seen images of a penis with semen all over it as well as that same penis peeing. We have also seen a penis in a womans mouth.

As stated before, some of us have clients that come to PBase to view images, as well as family members of all ages. Call it prudish, call it morals, call it whatever you will, but some just don't want their images mixed with what we have seen displayed lately.

If this is how PBase wants to be represented so be it. I guess some of us will just have to take our subscription money and subscribe on a hosting site that knows how to seperate such images from the general population.

Gary

[hmetal]

Hi Ray,

Now what if it were the adult members in the neighborhood running around, would that be acceptable? Do you shoot your images of Sharon in front of your neighbor's children?

Hi Gary,

I have no problem, personally, seeing nude people who choose to be naturalists/nudists.

Second, I would never shoot nude photos of Sharon (or any other subject) in front of anyone who isn't already accustomed to seeing nudity, including children. There are many naturalists including children in families who spend time in nudist resorts.

Nudity is not a dirty thing until you make it dirty by thinking perverted about children or by someone acting perverted by touching those children inappropriately or engaging them visually by performing sex acts in front of them. There are things you simply don't do to or in front of children.

It's a sad thing, but this is just the way society has become. If some pervert secretly shot images of your neighbor's children and those images ended up online on some kiddie porn sight, I'm sure it would be devistating if your neighbors were to able find out.

I'm sure it would be and if they were my children, I'd have the site shut down and the people prosecuted faster than you could press your shutter release. On that we agree. There should be no haven for disgusting pieces of crap who molest children.

In the last week or so I, along with other PBasers, have seen images of a penis with semen all over it as well as that same penis peeing. We have also seen a penis in a womans mouth.

I don't think those are appropriate for the meta gallery either.

As stated before, some of us have clients that come to PBase to view images, as well as family members of all ages. Call it prudish, call it morals, call it whatever you will, but some just don't want their images mixed with what we have seen displayed lately.

If these people are coming to view YOUR photos, simply tell them that you are not responsible for photos outside of your personal storage/gallery. I'm sure anyone with any common sense can understand that, this being a public image hosting site, that you can't control what other members post in their paid space.

If this is how PBase wants to be represented so be it. I guess some of us will just have to take our subscription money and subscribe on a hosting site that knows how to seperate such images from the general population.

I'm sorry you feel that way but us glamour/nude posters also pay our money to pBase. In fact, I paid twice as I also paid for Sharon to have her own gallery here on PBase. We're both paid up for just shy of three years and we'll continue to renew as long as we are comfortable here. We both like that PBase is liberal with content rules.

Peace mate,

Ray

[jypsee]

Do you consider my photos tasteless?

Yes... your photos have no business in the meta gallery. Especially your photo of -- I assume she's your wife -- your wife's butt facing the viewer. It's blatant "soft" porn and I see it as you (and she) needing attention. In another thread on this topic I made the point that I often browse PAD with my grandson, but I've stopped that. I also made the point that he knows, at his age, what's APPROPRIATE for public viewing... what you do in your private galleries or in your private life is your business; when you put it in my face, it's no longer just you....

[cjburianek]

I haven't seen any tasteless photos in the meta gallery lately. Do you consider my photos tasteless? You can give it to me straight, no sugar coating. I can handle it.

Apparently you missed the fellatio one two days ago...

There have been a couple others that are just in your face type as well..

Looked at your PAD gallery - no I don't consider yours tasteless and if he saw the thumbnails I wouldn't mind too much - not something we would go explore but it's ok. The one with the New Shawl is nice as "Reflecting" which I think is my favorite there. None of them are blatently sexual...

[cjburianek]

Especially your photo of -- I assume she's your wife -- your wife's butt facing the viewer. It's blatant "soft" porn and I see it as you (and she) needing attention.

Apparently I missed this one... I only viewed hmetals' PAD gallergy...

[cjburianek]

Formalizing my thoughts a bit...

I don't mind if it is something that one would see in say "Elle" or "Vogue" both do show nudity, women/men in just underwear etc at times and it has never bothered me...

What bothers me would be the stuff that typically would be in a magazine that would be either in an adult bookstore or have limited access ie hustler/playboy etc.

[davidclunas]

There you are then, get Slug or Emily to put some form of image/folder classification on the site and then allow users to set viewing preferences accordingly.

Pbase should simply remove users who post pornography (glamour is something else) and do not classify content. A filter would at least let give you a fighting chance to only view 'safe' content for family viewing.

You will probably never stop people from abusing the meta galleries, but as they have paid to join I can't see them wanting to be thrown off pbase for posting images incorrectly. After all if you want to post porn I'm sure there are better sites than this to do it.


Search results: make of these what you will.
PORN 25 Galleries 208 images
SEX 90 galleries 2488 images
nude 132 galleries 3586 images
naked 91 galleries 2360 images
beach 1169 galleries 4265 images
christmas 2181 galleries 2819 images
glamour 201 galleries 1627

Digital photography is growing, posting and sharing sites are also growing. Pbase is graphically clean and easy to use and free from advertising. It's time for the site to mature, set some guidelines, talk to its user base, look at how other providers are getting over these problems.

The sad thing is that so far 574 people have viewed this forum and only 23 replies have been made.

[rjyates]

There you are then, get Slug or Emily to put some form of image/folder classification on the site and then allow users to set viewing preferences accordingly.

Pbase should simply remove users who post pornography (glamour is something else) and do not classify content. A filter would at least let give you a fighting chance to only view 'safe' content for family viewing.

I agree - this seems a sensible way forward, the only other suggestion I would make is that classified images should not be available by default to guest visitors. That way you can feel comfortable about pointing friends and family to the site knowing that they won't see inappropriate content.

[hmetal]

Do you consider my photos tasteless?

Yes... your photos have no business in the meta gallery. Especially your photo of -- I assume she's your wife -- your wife's butt facing the viewer. It's blatant "soft" porn and I see it as you (and she) needing attention. In another thread on this topic I made the point that I often browse PAD with my grandson, but I've stopped that. I also made the point that he knows, at his age, what's APPROPRIATE for public viewing... what you do in your private galleries or in your private life is your business; when you put it in my face, it's no longer just you....

What is "appropriate" for public viewing is largely opinion and varies by geographical location. don't forget that PBase is not for US citizens alone.

Maybe it's just an American (Canada and the US that is) thing that you people are ashamed of your bodies and make your children ashamed of their sexuality. In my opinion, this is what makes so many screwed up adults who can't have good, productive relationships as they're constantly told they have to be covered up and no one should ever see their bodies. But that's a whole other psychological/sociological discussion or debate.

Oh.. before you accuse me of picking on Americans, I am Canadian, currently living in Canada. In my province, women can go topless (if they so choose) as long as standards of public decency (e.g. no public sex) are heeded.

It's a pretty strange thing to hear you calling our PAD photos "soft porn" when they are no more than you would see on any public beach in most parts of the world. Children also attend those same beaches. In fact, I've seen more explicit sights on public beaches, where "pink" can be seen. In our PAD photos, we are not having sex and there is no "pink" exposed.

I'm sorry you find our PAD photos tasteless but, seeing as we're not posting sexual acts, I'm not about to stop posting content similar to what we currently post. I am not ashamed of them, nor is my wife.

Oh, and maybe you get nude to "get attention," but we do not. We shoot what we shoot because we are content in our sexuality and I am quite proud of our photos, regarless of the agenda of some to make them dirty. There is a beauty that goes beyond fashion.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree, you and I.

The best solution here is to have Slug make a toggle on uploads, to have uploaders mark them as adult content, and then allow each user to configure his or her PBase experience to include or omit adult content in his site preferences (and a toggle on the search page would also be good).

[hmetal]

Apparently you missed the fellatio one two days ago...

There have been a couple others that are just in your face type as well..

Er.. Yep, I did miss the fellatio bit. I don't plan on going looking for it, but I agree with you that this would not be appropriate for the PAD meta gallery.

Fellatio is porn. Simple nudity, however, is not, IMO.

Looked at your PAD gallery - no I don't consider yours tasteless and if he saw the thumbnails I wouldn't mind too much - not something we would go explore but it's ok. The one with the New Shawl is nice as "Reflecting" which I think is my favorite there. None of them are blatently sexual...

Thanks for validating my opinion and thanks for the favorable sentiments on the shawl photo. We appreciate all comments and critiques.

I wouldn't expect that you and your little one to go exploring my photos together. Feel free to peek in from time to time when he is asleep or otherwise absent.

[hmetal]

Especially your photo of -- I assume she's your wife -- your wife's butt facing the viewer. It's blatant "soft" porn and I see it as you (and she) needing attention.

Apparently I missed this one... I only viewed hmetals' PAD gallergy...

Uhm.. To which photo are we referring here (title please)? The more explicit nudity on our galleries are password protected for private access.

[hmetal]

Pbase should simply remove users who post pornography (glamour is something else) and do not classify content. A filter would at least let give you a fighting chance to only view 'safe' content for family viewing.

Perhaps you should ask Slug if he is prepared to refund people's money if they do not agree to the rules that were not set out when they first subscribed. You can't put into place new rules without the paid membership agreeing to those new rules, unless you're prepared to issue a refund based on the amount of credits remaining on a user's account, or at least be prepared to lose future subscribers.

By the way, what is your definition of porn?

You will probably never stop people from abusing the meta galleries, but as they have paid to join I can't see them wanting to be thrown off pbase for posting images incorrectly. After all if you want to post porn I'm sure there are better sites than this to do it.

"Abuse" in this case is subject to opinion, but I see your point (e.g. in the case of the aforementioned fellatio photo).

I have no problem with this as long as those who DO want to see this type of content can access it easily.

The sad thing is that so far 574 people have viewed this forum and only 23 replies have been made.

I don't see that as sad. I see it as good as it means they're getting on with their lives, their photography and their fun and are not getting all twisted up over a few images.