Keep your "privates" in your private gallery!

[gpaai]

It's pretty much a plea for attention and if those who put that sort of photo on PAD/Pbase were to put it out there "in public" that's what the rest of society would call it.

You kind of hit the nail on the head with the term "in public". I can't speak for the world in general, but in Southern California if a person were to see certain parts of the body exposed "in public", the person responsible would be held accountable.

The bottom line is, PBase IS a public forum. There is no disclaimer or even an index page with "minor click here" options. Personally I believe it is only a matter of time before the right individual contacts Slug/Emily to discuss the matter.

Gary

[jude_53]

For myself, I find the endless showing of body parts and peek-a-boo stuff to be kind of sad. It's pretty much a plea for attention and if those who put that sort of photo on PAD/Pbase were to put it out there "in public" that's what the rest of society would call it. I doubt that the exhibitors of their hanging johnsons or breasts answer the door that way or go to the mailbox that way or the grocery store, etc... putting it on display here isn't ordinary behavior, so it draws attention.... mission accomplished

That'd be me.. self-proclaimed attention whore.. I can't think of too many artists who are NOT narcissistic in some way. I mean.. if you are not, you'd have your comments off.. and wouldn't care about even displaying your work. In some way, shape, or form.. the majority of us are this way. We WANT our work to be seen. We WANT people to tell us what they think.

One photographer's "art" might be birds.. anothers might be street shots .. and some do eclectic and if part of that includes my breasts or other parts, that is MY art. I think there is something so wonderful about the human body.. it IS a work of art - that is why so many other things in life try to mimic the form.

And personally, I don't care one bit if someone thinks I'm just doing it for the attention. I'm doing it because I LIKE the photo.. and I LIKE the subject .. AND the attention is good, too (at least I can admit it) But it's not the end all and be all.

Photosig.com offers Parental Guidence, R and X ratings so adult photos do not reach the screen if you have marked them off. I suggest we get that going here. I respect that someone doesn't want their children or their boss to see something shoved in their faces. But KNOWING that there is a chance of that happening on this site one would be foolish to sit with their child to peruse the galleries, then complain that little Billy was traumatized.

If you want to show a child your own work or the work of a friend, you can get right to that gallery without going on any other place on pbase where that might happen. You want to introduce your children or someone to photography ... there are other sites to look at that are made for children.

Google them.

Oh, and putting nude, peek-a-boo photos on a photography site isn't normal?

Now THAT is wild...

Off to hide my books from the bonfires..

[gpaai]

I suggest we get that going here.

I agree Jude! There is no reason what so ever for the average individual to take a boss or child into jude_53's galleries unless their intention is to show the individual what jude_53 is displaying in them.

Personally I believe it is just the public areas that need to be dealt with. Such as the first page that pops up the minute a person logs on to PBase. from time to time there are some pretty racey images on the popular galleries that immediately come into view. EVERYONE should be able to choose whether or not they care to see such images right off the bat.

If a person does want to see this type image, an extra click to immediately transfer them won't or at least shouldn't, put them out much.

Oh, and Jude, for the record, I have yet to see anything you have ever posted in the PAD meta gallery not be in good taste. Now if you were to handcuff your ankles to each side of a brass bed, set the timer on your camera, point it front and center, then post it as your photo of the day, I might start to wonder if you were getting just a little TOO starved for attention...

Gary

[jude_53]

Now if you were to handcuff your ankles to each side of a brass bed, set the timer on your camera, point it front and center, then post it as your photo of the day

Sigh... there goes my PAD for tomorrow..

[gpaai]

Now if you were to handcuff your ankles to each side of a brass bed, set the timer on your camera, point it front and center, then post it as your photo of the day

Sigh... there goes my PAD for tomorrow..

[hmetal]

You kind of hit the nail on the head with the term "in public". I can't speak for the world in general, but in Southern California if a person were to see certain parts of the body exposed "in public", the person responsible would be held accountable.

I guess I should be glad that I don't live in California then. As, where I live (at least, the province of Ontario, Canada), a woman may go topless in public (e.g. on the beach, while breast-feeding an infant, even walking down the street on a very hot, sunny day).

As for attention, sure, if that's what it takes it to get a foot in the door and isn't tasteless porn but instead is nude art, classic or contemporary glamour, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

Your mileage may vary..

[hmetal]

Photosig.com offers Parental Guidence, R and X ratings so adult photos do not reach the screen if you have marked them off. I suggest we get that going here.

I would be 100% happy with that and wouldn't object to marking my photos as "glamour" or "nudity," where applicable.

As long as it doesn't impede the vieweing experience of those who are perfectly confortable with those types of images.

[mysticchyna]

I don't agree. Wm. Bates Picture a Day of Wanda is a perfect example of tasteful glamour and semi-nude photography.

In fact, I plan to put nudes/glamour in my PAD also. (e.g. no sex and no "pink" as some call it)

Children shouldn't be made to be ashamed of seeing a nude (or semi nude) body. It is natural. I agree that some take it way too far, but I am a paid supporter of PBase and I'm not about to let those individuals make me feel ashamed of posting a tasteful nude or glamour photo here or anywhere else.

It is pornography that children should be sheltered from, until they are old enough to understand it, as taught by their parents. Children should not be ashamed when they see a classic, contemporary or artistic nude. There are perfectly innocent ways of explaining those kinds of photos to them.

The human form should be celebrated, not shunned.

I agree with this...and although the link isn't a PAD gallery..at one time it was in there...and honetstly I have issues with this.
http://www.pbase.com/sly_minx4u/happiness_in_slavery

[mysticchyna]

Once upon a time I emailed slug regarding the "rules" of PAD and in his reply he said "...the only thing that I'm not going to like is pornography since it's a public area of the site." I guess if pornography isn't nudity (in some person's eyes)... and slug has some notion of what he thinks is acceptable on PAD and if he ever finds time perhaps he will decide what is pornography and what is... art?
For myself, I find the endless showing of body parts and peek-a-boo stuff to be kind of sad. It's pretty much a plea for attention and if those who put that sort of photo on PAD/Pbase were to put it out there "in public" that's what the rest of society would call it. I doubt that the exhibitors of their hanging johnsons or breasts answer the door that way or go to the mailbox that way or the grocery store, etc... putting it on display here isn't ordinary behavior, so it draws attention.... mission accomplished.
Finally, I often browse PAD with my 13 year old grandson who has seen the blatant nudity and he's usually embarassed by it. Guess what? he's getting the "hang" of being a member of society. He's supposed to learn what's public and what's private. In other words, he's more grown up than the people who let it all (or some of it) "hang" out....
Bring on those "snapshots that have been showing up in the meta gallery." I'd really like to see them.

For once I agree with you. Of course people will pull the old subjectiveness angle on what is/isn't pronography vs. art.
I took issue with the below gallery link and everyone ripped me apart...but bottom line, if I had a kid, I'd not want this stuff showing up. And I do consider the below to be porn, (arfully done in a way), but porn nonetheless...especially since the website is a porn site anyway that he watermarks.
Without *fighting*, I'd like your opinion on it.
http://www.pbase.com/sly_minx4u/happiness_in_slavery

[slowpokebill]

not the same issue you have. The images I'm pretty sure are all copyrighted images. I'm guessing...and this is only a guess and could be wrong...I don't believe the poster of those images has any right to be posting the images or using them without a release from the photographers. That is clearly a violation of the terms of use agreement we all sign when subscribing to PBase.

Now to the question of "porn". I would say they would be thought by most experts to be art and very good art at that. Do they belong here on PBase...well I think a few of the images cross the line I would be comfortable with. The problem I have is I don't think I'm someone that should be deciding what and where the line is for everybody else. That is up to Slug. Bring it to his attention. If he thinks it crosses the line he has every right to remove the image and sanction the subscriber. It is Slugs site not ours.

Bill

with a PG-13 Glamour Warning ;^)
http://www.pbase.com/slowpokebill

[iannisrigakis]

You are totally right Natalie, I just agrre in all the things you describe for the Privacy.

[dazedgonebye]

Children shouldn't be made to be ashamed of seeing a nude (or semi nude) body. It is natural. I agree that some take it way too far, but I am a paid supporter of PBase and I'm not about to let those individuals make me feel ashamed of posting a tasteful nude or glamour photo here or anywhere else.

It is pornography that children should be sheltered from, until they are old enough to understand it, as taught by their parents. Children should not be ashamed when they see a classic, contemporary or artistic nude. There are perfectly innocent ways of explaining those kinds of photos to them.

I've read a few of these comments to the effect of "Children should not be ashamed of seeing a nude...."
Although I tend to agree, this is an issue entirely up to the discretion of the parents. I can certainly understand how some here would like to be sure their kids are not exposed to anything they deem to be over the line.
Because of the differences of opinion on this, and for other reasons of course, there are many choices for displaying/sharing photos on the Net. Some offer more control, as others here have mentioned. If it is important to you that you have that level of control, you should check them out.
Personaly, I do want that level of control and I excercise it by not letting my sons sit with me when I look through PBase. For others, a different site may be the answer.

[jypsee]

I respect that someone doesn't want their children or their boss to see something shoved in their faces. But KNOWING that there is a chance of that happening on this site one would be foolish to sit with their child to peruse the galleries, then complain that little Billy was traumatized.

yes, when you can't actually defend your behavior, but can only rationalize it, then the best thing to do is blame the other person. I take it that you don't show your grandchildren the PAD website; if true, it speaks volumes about what you probably think of PAD. My grandson wasn't traumatized; he was embarrassed.

If you want to show a child your own work or the work of a friend, you can get right to that gallery without going on any other place on pbase where that might happen. You want to introduce your children or someone to photography ... there are other sites to look at that are made for children.

Last time I checked, there were posts asking if there were any kids doing PAD. Hmmm..... seems there might be some people who have an expectation that PAD will have content suitable for children.

Oh, and putting nude, peek-a-boo photos on a photography site isn't normal?

Now THAT is wild...

Off to hide my books from the bonfires..

A red herring argument again.....

The original post asked that people keep their privates in their private galleries; Pbase offers such a service. It's password protected so that the gallery owner is the one in charge of viewers. Put another way, viewers don't have to avert their eyes in case there will be some PRIVATE content.

My comments regarding the peek-a-boo stuff are based on something called community standards. Put another way, would you do what you're doing in public?

[gillettecraig]

In the United States, the presence of of certain kinds of pictures has been considered to be creating a hostile workplace. Women (predominantly but not solely) have complained of seeing various kinds of what used to be called in more innocent times "girlie pictures" on lockers, toolboxes and the like. One of the "advances" fostered by the "woman's movement" is to reduce the freedom of those around them. Oddly enough, this never comes up when people are complaining about Ashcroft and the end of the world as they knew it. Oh yeah, a large picture of John Wayne was forced out of a fire station in "blue" Los Angeles.

What will happen? Businesses, schools and the like will continue to "manage" internet access and pbase will eventually get tagged for the various watchdog programs.

The concept that it only comes up when people look for it isn't true at this point and anyone who has ever invited a friend, co-worker, student or other acquaintance here should be aware of it. And the concept that people (especially kids) can't or won't navigate away from responsible/safe material is naive.

[hmetal]

Put another way, would you do what you're doing in public?

For me and my model(s), most certainly. That's whats called an outdoor location shoot and it is quite common since we all love natural, ambient light better than flash lighting.

As for the slavery stuff someone else posted a link to, that's not my "thing," it's a little over the top and more than what I would personally put in my PAD, though I've put in mine what most glamour photographers would consider quite tame.

The best hope for those who don't want children seeing content from which they think their children should be sheltered is PBase offering the ability to mark uploaded photos as "not work or child safe." This would be the perfect solution for working folks and parents/children.

As I said before, I'd have no problem marking flagging my photos if there was such a system. I want my photos to be seen, and I like them in the meta gallery. I will continue to put them there and hope that Slug & Co. can implement something to make everyone happy, at some point.