DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> nudity
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 166, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/28/2006 09:33:26 PM · #126
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

an r -rated movie and photographic art on this site that does not allow photos of genitals isn't a direct comparison. More like a PG movie or normal TV after 9 kind of thing.


Yes, that is also true. While, legitimate art can and some is X rated (showing of genitals) DPC's no-genital, no sex acts rules do a damn good job of defending it's status as an art site. Now Pornosig (ooops Photosig), I'd be hard-pressed to defend some photos there.
03/28/2006 09:42:14 PM · #127
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Sorry, seenosun for deleting my comment, I deleted it before I thought anyone had read it, I dedcided I didn't want to get in an argument.

You quoted the law correctly the second time, but it still doesn't apply to DPC, because DPC is not a primary producer or distributor of "adult" material.

DPC is an art site, not a porn site. I've seen very few images here, I'dconsider erotica, nevertheless porn. AND, nudity in itself does not make an image pornography in a court of law.

Even if you can misread the law to try to defend your argument, it just doesn't hold in realilty.


You may want to read the law again...it can be applied to DPC as a "Secondary Producer". the term "Sexually Explicit" is intentionally vague to give the Government broad descretion. I am very familiar with the law and it should concern everyone that posts images of a sexual nature on the internet.

On June 23, new regulations from the Department of Justice went into effect, dramatically expanding the reach of a statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2257, intended to regulate the adult entertainment industry. Now it includes every blogger, online journalist, and website owner who displays any image falling under the law's broad (and vague) definition of "sexually explicit" materials.

The new regulations expand the definition of a so-called "secondary producer" of materials to include anyone "who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of" sexually explicit conduct. If you're a blogger or you host a website and write an online article or personal ad with a photo that falls under that definition, that means you (or possibly DPC?).

Actual link to the text in the new Law:

//www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html


Message edited by author 2006-03-28 21:43:46.
 03/28/2006 09:48:52 PM · #128
Originally posted by seenosun:

You may want to read the law again...it can be applied to DPC as a "Secondary Producer". the term "Sexually Explicit" is intentionally vague to give the Government broad descretion. I am very familiar with the law and it should concern everyone that posts images of a sexual nature on the internet.

On June 23, new regulations from the Department of Justice went into effect, dramatically expanding the reach of a statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2257, intended to regulate the adult entertainment industry. Now it includes every blogger, online journalist, and website owner who displays any image falling under the law's broad (and vague) definition of "sexually explicit" materials.


"intended to regulate the adult entertainment industry"

That says enough to me, but you can keep ranting if you want.

"the term "Sexually Explicit" is intentionally vague to give the Government broad descretion."

Yeah, maybe it does, but post in this thread ONE image on DPC that is "sexually explicit".

BTW, I am VERY familiar with PORN! Have you ever produced or distributed porn?

Message edited by author 2006-03-28 21:51:09.
 03/28/2006 09:48:57 PM · #129
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

an r -rated movie and photographic art on this site that does not allow photos of genitals isn't a direct comparison. More like a PG movie or normal TV after 9 kind of thing.


Yes, that is also true. While, legitimate art can and some is X rated (showing of genitals) DPC's no-genital, no sex acts rules do a damn good job of defending it's status as an art site. Now Pornosig (ooops Photosig), I'd be hard-pressed to defend some photos there.


I suppose that if an argument can be made that "exact" doesn't really mean "exact" than it can be reasoned that "erotica" could be considered "sexually explicit". Why don't we ask a certain 15 year old on this site!

edit to add: the Law was originally intended to regulate the porn industry - it has been change to expand the governments power.

Message edited by author 2006-03-28 21:51:59.
 03/28/2006 09:56:09 PM · #130
Originally posted by seenosun:

edit to add: the Law was originally intended to regulate the porn industry - it has been change to expand the governments power.


And would not hold up in court against an art site. And every law enforcement agency knows that. Do you belive the FBI would raid Langdon's or Drew's houses searching for records of images uploaded by 500,000 members WORLDWIDE?

I don't know of many law enforcement agenices that want to appear THAT stupid.

Message edited by author 2006-03-28 21:57:38.
 03/28/2006 10:00:31 PM · #131
Anyway this thread is getting a tad off-track and relatively boring, so clicking the IGY button now. TTYL.
 03/28/2006 10:03:14 PM · #132
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by seenosun:

edit to add: the Law was originally intended to regulate the porn industry - it has been change to expand the governments power.


And would not hold up in court against an art site. And every law enforcement agency knows that. Do you belive the FBI would raid Langdon's or Drew's houses searching for records of images uploaded by 500,000 members WORLDWIDE?


The law requires them to post an address on the site where the Feds can visit to inspect the records during normal business hours. This site is non-compliant based on that single requirement. Do D&L have the legal fund to go to battle with the Feds? The changes in this law have only been around for less than a year. If I were D&L i'd at least have a conversation with an Attorney and not assume it does not apply.

And BTW i used to own an amatuer porn site called skinflix.net and closed it when John Ashcroft was appointed AG.
 03/28/2006 10:03:50 PM · #133
Originally posted by seenosun:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

an r -rated movie and photographic art on this site that does not allow photos of genitals isn't a direct comparison. More like a PG movie or normal TV after 9 kind of thing.


Yes, that is also true. While, legitimate art can and some is X rated (showing of genitals) DPC's no-genital, no sex acts rules do a damn good job of defending it's status as an art site. Now Pornosig (ooops Photosig), I'd be hard-pressed to defend some photos there.


I suppose that if an argument can be made that "exact" doesn't really mean "exact" than it can be reasoned that "erotica" could be considered "sexually explicit". Why don't we ask a certain 15 year old on this site!

edit to add: the Law was originally intended to regulate the porn industry - it has been change to expand the governments power.


I was 15 when I started here, and I can say with 100% certainty that I knew the difference between art nudes and sexually explicit nudes. Nudes didn't bother me, and I didn't treat them any different to other photos... except maybe looking a little bit harder at certain areas, hehe :P But yeh, I could tell what was artistic and what wasn't. Kids arent as naiave and corruptable as a lot of adults believe.
 03/29/2006 12:42:35 AM · #134
I propose a new rule for DPC; the No Skin Rule.

That's right, any people, men or women, in any photograph posted, must be completely covered head to toe. I think it's high time we helped popularize the burqua, for both men and women. That would eliminate any risk at all that soemone under 18 might accidentally see some skin that would give them wrong ideas and pollute their psyches.
 03/29/2006 12:56:58 AM · #135
I propose a new rule for DPC; the No Clothes Rule.

That's right, any people, men or women, in any photograph posted, must be completely naked head to toe. I think it's high time we helped popularize the burqua, for both men and women. That would eliminate any risk at all that soemone over 18 might accidentally see some clothes that would give them wrong ideas and pollute their psyches.

See how ridiculous that is.

Now come on...it's a free world. You make your own choices....don't put your opinions on everyone else. As stated earlier...no parents have complained about the current status...so would should someone else tell us what our children should and shouldn't see. If you feel you need to tell the world to grow up....then get out there and stop the amount of violence being shown.
 03/29/2006 12:59:12 AM · #136
I haven't seen a temper tantrum like this since Nbsca7 left...
 03/29/2006 01:12:01 AM · #137
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I haven't seen a temper tantrum like this since Nbsca7 left...


That's a pretty strong statement/attack just because I feel strongly about children under 18 providing parental consent. It is my opinion. I have presented facts and examples to support my opinion. I have not attacked you in this discussion so how about a little respect. You may not agree with me but I am entitled to my opinion.
 03/29/2006 01:25:03 AM · #138
Originally posted by seenosun:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I haven't seen a temper tantrum like this since Nbsca7 left...


That's a pretty strong statement/attack just because I feel strongly about children under 18 providing parental consent. It is my opinion. I have presented facts and examples to support my opinion. I have not attacked you in this discussion so how about a little respect. You may not agree with me but I am entitled to my opinion.


Wasn't this thread started because you were upset about a comment a kid left on your photo?
 03/29/2006 01:27:53 AM · #139
Originally posted by Konador:

I was 15 when I started here, and I can say with 100% certainty that I knew the difference between art nudes and sexually explicit nudes. Nudes didn't bother me, and I didn't treat them any different to other photos... except maybe looking a little bit harder at certain areas, hehe :P But yeh, I could tell what was artistic and what wasn't. Kids arent as naiave and corruptable as a lot of adults believe.


It reminds me of my childhood. Once when i was 15, i put a big poster in my room. It was pretty erotic. My mom and dad just went bonkers.(mind that i am indian, so in indian houses hanging a nude is very big thing). And i had to remove this after around a month due to protest from my mom. Well that time i was learning paintings so, studying female anatomy was just part of study.

Another thing related to that nude is: when i went to college after 3 years, i took it with me, and hanged it outside my hostel room door. It was quite famous, but once i had to hang monalisa poster on it (to cover it), because one of my firends parent visited him.

Anyway, kids are no more kids. (they could be kids making machine, if you give them chance).
 03/29/2006 01:30:26 AM · #140
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Wasn't this thread started because you were upset about a comment a kid left on your photo?


No, the OP was Willagher.

R.
 03/29/2006 01:31:29 AM · #141
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Wasn't this thread started because you were upset about a comment a kid left on your photo?


No, the OP was Willagher.

R.


The way he has been going on you would think he was the OP...

Message edited by author 2006-03-29 01:32:33.
 03/29/2006 01:36:01 AM · #142
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by seenosun:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I haven't seen a temper tantrum like this since Nbsca7 left...


That's a pretty strong statement/attack just because I feel strongly about children under 18 providing parental consent. It is my opinion. I have presented facts and examples to support my opinion. I have not attacked you in this discussion so how about a little respect. You may not agree with me but I am entitled to my opinion.


Wasn't this thread started because you were upset about a comment a kid left on your photo?


this thread wasn't started by me. I agreed with the OP that filters should be in place for nudes on challenges. I have also stated children under 18 not 13 should provide parental consent before joining DPC. i never attacked you. Why do you feel the need to attack me?
 03/29/2006 01:40:20 AM · #143
Originally posted by seenosun:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by seenosun:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I haven't seen a temper tantrum like this since Nbsca7 left...


That's a pretty strong statement/attack just because I feel strongly about children under 18 providing parental consent. It is my opinion. I have presented facts and examples to support my opinion. I have not attacked you in this discussion so how about a little respect. You may not agree with me but I am entitled to my opinion.


Wasn't this thread started because you were upset about a comment a kid left on your photo?


this thread wasn't started by me. I agreed with the OP that filters should be in place for nudes on challenges. I have also stated children under 18 not 13 should provide parental consent before joining DPC. i never attacked you. Why do you feel the need to attack me?


I'm not attacking you. Grow thicker skin.

Question though, why would you have to be 18 to view here what you can see in a pg-13 movie?
 03/29/2006 02:21:43 AM · #144
Originally posted by Judi:
I propose a new rule for DPC; the No Clothes Rule.

That's right, any people, men or women, in any photograph posted, must be completely naked head to toe. I think it's high time we helped popularize the burqua, for both men and women. That would eliminate any risk at all that soemone over 18 might accidentally see some clothes that would give them wrong ideas and pollute their psyches.

See how ridiculous that is.

Now come on...it's a free world. You make your own choices....don't put your opinions on everyone else. As stated earlier...no parents have complained about the current status...so would should someone else tell us what our children should and shouldn't see. If you feel you need to tell the world to grow up....then get out there and stop the amount of violence being shown.


I think it's ridiculous that you are both promoting wearing the burqua AND nudity at the same time. Obviously you didn't read my post before copying it and changing a few key words. Hopefully, you didn't take it seriously either.

Your rule is OK too, D&L can just charge your credit card $9.99/month every month, unless you call to cancel, for access to Digital Porno Challenge.

Message edited by author 2006-03-29 02:23:54.
 03/29/2006 02:32:10 AM · #145
I believe it should be up to the parents to control what their children are looking at on the internet, whether it be this site or any other site.
 03/29/2006 03:03:24 AM · #146
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Judi:
I propose a new rule for DPC; the No Clothes Rule.

That's right, any people, men or women, in any photograph posted, must be completely naked head to toe. I think it's high time we helped popularize the burqua, for both men and women. That would eliminate any risk at all that soemone over 18 might accidentally see some clothes that would give them wrong ideas and pollute their psyches.

See how ridiculous that is.

Now come on...it's a free world. You make your own choices....don't put your opinions on everyone else. As stated earlier...no parents have complained about the current status...so would should someone else tell us what our children should and shouldn't see. If you feel you need to tell the world to grow up....then get out there and stop the amount of violence being shown.


I think it's ridiculous that you are both promoting wearing the burqua AND nudity at the same time. Obviously you didn't read my post before copying it and changing a few key words. Hopefully, you didn't take it seriously either.

Your rule is OK too, D&L can just charge your credit card $9.99/month every month, unless you call to cancel, for access to Digital Porno Challenge.


Hahahaha....funny!! I have a child member here and...oh heck, I won't go into it again. But whilst I believe it is up to the parent to control what their children see, I also believe there is no need to show porn. I love studying the human form and that does include nudity...but all of my models know that I refuse to photograph genitalia....I do not feel there is any need for it and I will usually go to great extents to ensure that it isn't included in any photograph....even ones that don't make the cutting board.
 03/29/2006 03:05:33 AM · #147
Sorry, but there's also a major, major gap between pornography and showing genitalia as well.

It amazes me that so many people that are fine with "nudity" are suddenly 100% against genitalia. *Especially* male genitalia. As if the penis is some mighty corrupter of all that is decent all of a sudden.

Amazing.

03/29/2006 03:35:07 AM · #148
Originally posted by Artyste:
It amazes me that so many people that are fine with "nudity" are suddenly 100% against genitalia. *Especially* male genitalia. As if the penis is some mighty corrupter of all that is decent all of a sudden.

Well you know what they say...

The penis mightier than the sword.
 03/29/2006 03:41:10 AM · #149
I see nothing wrong with artistic nudes showing genitalia. The genitals are simply part of the body. If the nude shot is done tastefully there should not be a problem.
 03/29/2006 04:44:32 AM · #150
Originally posted by seenosun:
It is DPC's responsibility to create an environment where children who aren't even old enough to drive aren't exposed to things that are innapproriate.


Seenosun, you are doing exactly what I commented on before - your statement presupposes that viewing any nudity is intrinsically inappropriate for under-18s. The responses I made before still apply. If you are going to argue that DPC needs to do more, you first need to establish that seeing the sort of nudity present on DPC is prima facie inappropriate for people under 18. To date, you have not done this.

The leap from nudity present on a site to a 50-year-old male contacting underage members to discuss their reactions to nudity is a pretty massive leap.

I hope your comment about your dominatrix wife not seeing under-18 clients without a note from home was sarcastic (I admit it, I can't tell), because the idea of a dominatrix with a 17-yo client is orders of magnitude more creepy than even the 50-year-old male contacting the underage member, let alone teens being able to see nudity.

Your argument about kids being prevented from seeing nudity in movies because of R ratings doesn't hold water. I have seen at least one American mainstream movie with full-frontal nudity in a cinema, where it was rated M - recommended for viewers over 15 years, but no restrictions on younger viewers entering.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/19/2025 06:37:34 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/19/2025 06:37:34 AM EDT.