| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2006 10:18:50 PM · #26 |
| Well, obviously you can't show the one thingy, but the other thingy(ies) really shouldn't be shown either. Thus the rules don't carry any weight. (That's pretty much what I got out of it!) :-) |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:24:25 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
What I don't get is why hasn't this been brought to the attention of those in charge or has it? If it's not in breach of the TOS then the real issue here is with the admins and not the photographer or that photograph.
I personally don't find it offensive. It's not in my tastes but I don't make up the rules here so who am I to blast this person for posting a photo that apparently meets the TOS? As I mentioned in that photo thread, the people who hate it the most are the people directly responsible for giving this photo the exposure it keeps getting. Just ignore it. |
I agree here. My Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy from med school days certainly considers the mons pubis and labium majus as part of the female genitalia. If all we are avoiding are the labium minora, then I think the TOS rule about this has very little bite to it... |
Layman terms Doc, If you please... :P |
Ummm, the Mountain of Love and the Big Lips are showing. My anatomy book says they qualify as "privates". If all we are avoiding are the little lips, then I don't think we are really avoiding that much...
Look at it this way...if the octopus tentacle was replaced by the model's finger, would we even be having this discussion? It think it would have been yanked a long time ago...
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 22:27:53.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:35:28 PM · #28 |
| Doc did a much better job of saying it in layman terms than I did. I should have stayed awake during Anatomy. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:39:42 PM · #29 |
Anyone want to bet how long the image would have stayed up if it were the MALE anatomy being octopussed here?
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:41:51 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyone want to bet how long the image would have stayed up if it were the MALE anatomy being octopussed here?
R. |
LOL
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:43:00 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyone want to bet how long the image would have stayed up if it were the MALE anatomy being octopussed here?
R. |
half a day at best ...
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:43:53 PM · #32 |
Seriously? Based on this image posted here, I can show the glans if I cover the ureter, right? Sorry for the graphic terminology...
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:49:23 PM · #33 |
for the people that have lives I am sorry. actually, your probly not even posting anything.
for those scared of the octopus, I'm not sure of the name of the phobia, but I am sure there is treatment.
for those that think the octopuss had no choice in this photographic endeaver, how do you know? Did you ask? If you did, what was it's reply...exactly?
for those jealous that you did not think of this shot, and wished you did, I am sure you could probly shoe horn something similar in the next challenge.
for those that think your doctors, and think that some sort of disease will come from the octopuss on the private part of the model? Just thank God it's not you. Move on.
for those with vivid imaginations over nothing and have nothing better to do but bitch over catholic inhabitions, moral judgments, artistic creativeness, all I can say is, get a life.
The title is great, the image is fair, the artist deserves a break.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:54:37 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
for the people that have lives I am sorry. actually, your probly not even posting anything.
for those scared of the octopus, I'm not sure of the name of the phobia, but I am sure there is treatment.
for those that think the octopuss had no choice in this photographic endeaver, how do you know? Did you ask? If you did, what was it's reply...exactly?
for those jealous that you did not think of this shot, and wished you did, I am sure you could probly shoe horn something similar in the next challenge.
for those that think your doctors, and think that some sort of disease will come from the octopuss on the private part of the model? Just thank God it's not you. Move on.
for those with vivid imaginations over nothing and have nothing better to do but bitch over catholic inhabitions, moral judgments, artistic creativeness, all I can say is, get a life.
The title is great, the image is fair, the artist deserves a break. |
and for those that ned a frontal lobotamy... put up your hands... :P
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 10:56:10 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Qart:
and for those that ned a frontal lobotamy... put up your hands... :P |
*raises hand* Oh, I thought you said "Bottle in front of me"
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:00:57 PM · #36 |
Brother Horse, in all fairness this is more about the TOS than it is about censorship per se; we have 'em, why aren't they being applied in this case? personally, I couldn't care less, I've seen it all before, but rules is rules...
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:07:35 PM · #37 |
Okay, one SC chiming in here. yes, the picture was brought to our attention a week or so ago. Yes, we discussed it, at length. Basically, the SC decision made was in accordance to past policy implementation -- portfolio entries are not the same as challenge entries, therefore, they do not fall under the same set of entry guidelines. The basis or reasoning being that you really don't have a choice when viewing the challenge entries, but you definitely have a choice to view or not view someone's portfolio.
There is a concern and an acknowledgement on the part of the SC that if this type of thing (or worse) starts becoming the "norm," and dpc becomes a place for "porn" portfolios, then the policy will be re-addressed.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:09:04 PM · #38 |
Thanks for chiming in karmat. Fair 'nuff, I guess. I don't quite agree, but I can see the reasoning at least...
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:22:26 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Okay, one SC chiming in here. yes, the picture was brought to our attention a week or so ago. Yes, we discussed it, at length. Basically, the SC decision made was in accordance to past policy implementation -- portfolio entries are not the same as challenge entries, therefore, they do not fall under the same set of entry guidelines. The basis or reasoning being that you really don't have a choice when viewing the challenge entries, but you definitely have a choice to view or not view someone's portfolio.
There is a concern and an acknowledgement on the part of the SC that if this type of thing (or worse) starts becoming the "norm," and dpc becomes a place for "porn" portfolios, then the policy will be re-addressed. |
So, I can put my major element back? hehe
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:27:50 PM · #40 |
| Seems like you added a major element not remove one. :P |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:29:24 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Brother Horse, in all fairness this is more about the TOS than it is about censorship per se; we have 'em, why aren't they being applied in this case? personally, I couldn't care less, I've seen it all before, but rules is rules...
R. |
I know, just messing around. I was "inspired".
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:29:45 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by karmat:
Okay, one SC chiming in here. yes, the picture was brought to our attention a week or so ago. Yes, we discussed it, at length. Basically, the SC decision made was in accordance to past policy implementation -- portfolio entries are not the same as challenge entries, therefore, they do not fall under the same set of entry guidelines. The basis or reasoning being that you really don't have a choice when viewing the challenge entries, but you definitely have a choice to view or not view someone's portfolio.
There is a concern and an acknowledgement on the part of the SC that if this type of thing (or worse) starts becoming the "norm," and dpc becomes a place for "porn" portfolios, then the policy will be re-addressed. |
So, I can put my major element back? hehe
|
I was wondering how long it would be until you posted on of yoru nudes in this thread... now I know..
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:33:11 PM · #43 |
ok, as a whiner about teh more porny nudes on this site... I see nothing wrong with this, other than its mediocre execution.
Everything is covered, and the Mons Pubis is available for viewing in many of the nudes on this site. This TO ME and i repeat for those who will attack my post TO ME is an art nude.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 23:36:38. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:33:39 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Seems like you added a major element not remove one. :P |
I suppose that is debatable... perhaps another day... LOL
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:44:30 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Di:
ok, as a whiner about teh more porny nudes on this site... I see nothing wrong with this, other than its mediocre execution.
Everything is covered, and the Mons Pubis is available for viewing in many of the nudes on this site. This TO ME and i repeat for those who will attack my post TO ME is an art nude. |
I think you are totally wrong. TO YOU, this is not an art nude! YOU know it. TO YOU it was clearly exploitation of an underage mollusk! YOU just aren't admitting it!
OK, I just can't keep a straight face any longer...
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:47:36 PM · #46 |
Oh, wait to PETA sees this pic...
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 11:49:35 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Di:
ok, as a whiner about teh more porny nudes on this site... I see nothing wrong with this, other than its mediocre execution.
Everything is covered, and the Mons Pubis is available for viewing in many of the nudes on this site. This TO ME and i repeat for those who will attack my post TO ME is an art nude. |
I think you are totally wrong. TO YOU, this is not an art nude! YOU know it. TO YOU it was clearly exploitation of an underage mollusk! YOU just aren't admitting it!
OK, I just can't keep a straight face any longer... |
::blush:: yes, i admit to wanting the exploitation of underage mollusks... but... WAIT ... yeah ... its an exploitation.. thats it.. yeah exploitation you got it DrAchoo.
::hides with the sneeze doc perving underage mollusks::
LMAO!!
|
|
|
|
10/27/2006 12:24:03 AM · #48 |
Forget the TOS, now that I think of it: isn't the image in violation of the Mann Act, which forbids the transposition of trained female octopuses across the mons veneris for immoral porpoises?
(running for shelter)
R. |
|
|
|
10/27/2006 12:34:04 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Forget the TOS, now that I think of it: isn't the image in violation of the Mann Act, which forbids the transposition of trained female octopuses across the mons veneris for immoral porpoises?
(running for shelter)
R. |
*throws a rotten tomato*
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:33:08 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find this one actually much more suggestive...
 |
Yup. The first time I saw the thumb I said; "Holy Moses!" Then I clicked the thumb, of course, and had a good laugh. Some people here are thinking all the time. ;)
|
|
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: 08/28/2025 11:55:09 AM EDT.
