Keep your "privates" in your private gallery!

[35sur]

I am sorry, I won´t display my privates again!!!!!!!

[dds]

That's one helluva proboscus. Cyrano meets Pinochio.

[simonkirk]

"Dont stop Woody!"

bet he is good at oral!


opps the fun police are cumming, great photo btw!

[sjnyates]

No Nat, I think the same way. I agree with Gary.

[johnwaine]

With reference to 'Scunthorpe' and this thread generally, should I remove from PBase all location references to pictures of my village - Great Coxwell??

Please advise

[darter02]

With reference to 'Scunthorpe' and this thread generally, should I remove from PBase all location references to pictures of my village - Great Coxwell??

Please advise

Great Coxwell? Nah, you're OK. But if you lived in Intercourse, Pennsylvania, USA we'd have a problem...

(Yes, there really is a town named that here...LOL)

[bish0p]

hmetal, I don't mean this in an attacking manner, but if you have kids (even if you don't), how would you explain to a child a shot of a breast covered in caramel sauce, as I saw the other day?
I think it is PBase's responsability to set the guidelines and reinforce the fact that some galleries may contain material that some will find insulting. Like include a sentence or two about it when doing a search, for instance. What I find tasteful, may be downright insulting to the guy next door, so users should not have to pay the burden of being apologetic in any way because they feel they can create art with nudity.

I do have kids, and think that a nude image as long as it is not degrading in any way to one sex or the other can be art. If it is degrading it's porn, and has no real place in art.

I have spent many months wandering the art galleries of Europe and they certainly have no issue showing a fully nude woman or man, nor do they consider it porn.

As for how I would describe the image you ask about above, I have not seen it, but certainly would not shelter my kids from it as it is this type of fear of exposure that makes this even an issue in North American Society. Was it degrading, or was it artfully light with an interesting composition and perspective?

I may be on a soapbox now but it is the making of the nude body wrong is one of the reasons that so many North Americans have such a screwed up body image.

As for what rules should be applied to nude or semi nude images, that depends does Pbase take money from Europe, Central America, Australia, or the countless other parts of the world that do not cower from a nude form? If it does then imposing North American style morality to the art of the rest of the world is rather heavy handed to appease the moral judgments of a few people in a few nations.

Bish0p

[gpaai]

If it is degrading it's porn, and has no real place in art.
Bish0p

Again, who measures what is degrading? There are many that think a man walking a nude woman down the street on a leash is degrading, while others consider it art.

Some may look at the pubic area of a woman as art simply because she has a tatoo of a lawn mower trimming her bush, while others cry fowl because they were exposed to the stretched out region just below it.

And what about a man? If it's soft it's ok, but erect, it's not? And who makes the rules?

The bottom line is, when Suzie or Sammy show me all decides to expose themselves, discretion should be used on the public areas of the site.

I think a simple disclaimer on the main page would be suitable warning. That way people have been allowed the opportunity to surf elsewhere.

Gary

[sheenat]

Great Coxwell? Nah, you're OK. But if you lived in Intercourse, Pennsylvania, USA we'd have a problem...

Try living in Dildo, Newfoundland. LOL
Sheena

[hmetal]

who measures what is degrading? There are many that think a man walking a nude woman down the street on a leash is degrading, while others consider it art.
...

I agree. In fact, I consider people putting piercings all over their bodies degrading to themselves. It is also self-expression, which is one of the definitions of "art." I wouldn't have any problem with it being posted in a PAD/meta gallery.

As for the caramel thing, I guess it would depend on where the caramel was and whether or not there was a sexual act being performed.

Caramel on a body is one thing, images of explicit sex with caramel (as in intercourse, fellatio or cunniligus) is another.

The former I don't mind in a PAD gallery. The latter should not be allowed in a PAD gallery.

[juliano]

[quote="hmetal"]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.[/quote]

[gpaai]

Wm. Bates Picture a Day of Wanda is a perfect example of tasteful glamour and semi-nude photography.

AGREED!

It is pornography that children should be sheltered from.

SO WHAT IS PORNOGRAPHY?

[slowpokebill]

One of the Supreemes...not the singers but one of the Justices...said something along the lines of... He couldn't define pornography but he knew it when he saw it. He hit it in a very round about way.

Pornography only exists in the viewers mind and not in the image.

I take photos I would call pretty tame and in no way porno but other have accused me of being a cheap pornographer. If it titillates they think it is porno, even if it doesn't contain nudity but is just sexy. Here is the problem. I could take a picture of my Golden Retriever and somebody out there will surely get sexual aroused and wank to the photo. For that person the golden retriever photos are porno. Again it wasn't the image but what the viewer thought of the image.

There in lies the problem. What people think is porno/obscene is a sliding scale. Not much offends me but some would find a picture of any woman where you could see her skin obscene. Who do you allow to make the rules and where to draw the line?

For everyone one what is pornography is up to the person. I don't think anyone should be making rules for someone else.

As long as the subject can give consent for the photo to be taken (kinds can't willingly and knowingly give consent) and the photographer is willing to take the picture then I'm fine with that. If it is something I'm not interested in looking at then I won't look. Pretty simple.

Again obscenity or pornography is in the mind of the viewer and not in the image.

If you see a closeup picture of a naked woman spread wide you might call it porno in Hustler. Then if the very same image was in a medical book sitting on your doctors desk most even conservative religious people would not think it was porno. Same photo different context?

Again it isn't the image that is pornographic it is what the viewer thinks is porno.

So I guess the image says more about the viewer than it did about the model or photographer. Hey that would be called art.

Bill

[jude_53]

Pornography is what one rents on the weekend

I agree that pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Case in point, my mother saw this photo:



and wrote to tell me she thought it was porn. I wrote and said, mom, dad was a photographer.. I believe I've seen "art" photos of you while snooping through his negatives one day as a teen.

I swear I could hear her sputter all the way from Ohio..

I think we all know what we EACH consider porn.. and I like the idea of a disclaimer on the front home page of Pbase (is front and home redundant?)

Anyhow.. that's my 2 cents..

[jude_53]

Oh.. and Bill.. um.. how old are those dogs?