| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2011 01:58:01 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jamesgoss:
for the OP:
from your own portfolio:
Could I say that you have the same act depicted in your own photo? I mean, they're nude-- I can read it that way if I want.
as for:
general questions:
What exactly makes for a sexual act? That they're in their underwear? Why is it easy to see breasts, and nudity and bypass that as an artistic expression, but not this? |
Rodin't Kiss does not have genital contact or direct genital stimulation. Although it is clearly sexual, it is not depicting an act of sex IMO. Foreplay is by definition the actions before sex, so by definition, not sex. The picture in question is depicting genital contact in a clearly recognizable sexual position. It is IMO depicting sex. I don't think the underwear changes that. I am not bringing this up as a moral issue, but as a an issue of rules. The rules clearly say that depicting acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council are not permitted. I copy and pasted the rule in the original post. My question for this post is, if this is photo is a depiction of an act of sex, which I believe it is, what makes it allowable? More simply, can we depict acts of sex if we have our models wear underwear? The morality of the picture is not my point today.
Rodin's Kiss in my view isn't sex. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 02:00:32 PM · #27 |
There is no way to have a clear dividing line for a rule like this -- it is declared up front that the decision is a subjective one by a designated group.
The nearest I can get to a "helpful" explanation is that erotica is allowed and pornography is not. If your photo has "artistic merit" and does not depict actual human genitalia it will probably be allowed, even if it is "suggestive" of but does not explicitly depict certain activities or a state of mind. But that's just one opinion ... |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 04:32:18 PM · #28 |
| Next time, lets just make it a six deadly sins challenge. Just to be safe, no images or suggestions of...you know...that stuff...for the kid's sake. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 04:35:09 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Next time, lets just make it a six deadly sins challenge. Just to be safe, no images or suggestions of...you know...that stuff...for the kid's sake. |
But, but ... Greed is the cornerstone of western civilization -- they'll have to learn about it sometime! |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 04:56:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Glee is more explicit than that. |
LOL...oh Clive...you are priceless! |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 05:36:42 PM · #31 |
| Wow when I voted on this image I wasn't even thinking it could be dq'd for sexual content I just thought, nice butt, but then I'm a pig lol |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 06:27:51 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
[Rodin't Kiss does not have genital contact or direct genital stimulation. Although it is clearly sexual, it is not depicting an act of sex IMO. |
OK... lemme see. Two people butt naked fondling each other is not a sex act.
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Foreplay is by definition the actions before sex, so by definition, not sex. |
People engaging in all types of various activities which do not include penetration is not sex.
Originally posted by cloudsme:
The picture in question is depicting genital contact in a clearly recognizable sexual position. It is IMO depicting sex. I don't think the underwear changes that. |
Two people wearing clothing, NOT fondling each other... are engaged in sex.
Sheesh... remind me not to post images of a quarterback waiting for the center to give him the ball... that too could be misconstrued as a sexual act.
An image such as this one viewed by a European or a French Canadian would not even merit a second glance. Some folks in DPC land are truly wound up tighter than the springs in a cheap watch... Lighten up an live a litte.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 06:45:39 PM · #33 |
WARNING: I use the "v" word and the "p" word
I must first say that in no way am I defending my picture or was it's intention to offend (though I'm not about to apologize to those it did). I am quite honored to have sparked quite a debate! Now to look at this objectively...
I must state that by all intense and purposes I agree that it does suggest an act of "sex" (as foreplay I guess could be considered an act of sex). But the rules do state that the act of sex must be deemed inappropriate. Would I look at this picture and deem this as inappropriate given the challenge subject...no. Would I look at it and say that some people may take offense to it....yes. But IMO that is the beauty of art. People will look at it and see what they wish to see (hence why I will not apologize).
Looking at this particular rule in context I first looked at the genitalia section (as it was first). Genitalia quite literally is the latin translation of "sex organs". Now sex organs is defined as "The organs pertaining entirely to the sex of an individual, both physiologically and anatomically". This would include a females breasts as they pertain to the sex of an individual. Many people have evolved the meaning into the vagina or penis, though I would consider a picture of a 14 years old breasts child pornography (and dare I say so would the law considering the laws put in place to protect our minors). Having said that, and being rather literal on this definition nudes would be considered a DQ as it displays genitalia (or sexual organs). But here lies the freedom in artistic expression. Personally speaking I would never look at a nude or a suggestive photograph and get offended (heck, every movie I see now a days has some form of dare I say MORE sexually explicit acts). I would more look at the picture and try to understand what the artist was trying to convey, or what particular mood/message I got from the photograph. Then I would either love it or hate it or otherwise. I must admit when I first saw the "boobie" picture my first thought was "HOLY BOOBIES!" but the picture was not about boobs, or the fact that she was laying on her back, it was about the feeling I got from the picture (TOTAL envy. haha. What I would give for a pair of knockers like that). I understand not all photographers/artists look at pictures that way and I'm not knocking the ones that don't, it is just what I personally do. Nor do my views extend to everyone.
Now that I've spoken my mind, I have to say I'm loving the honest comments and intriguing discussion :) |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 06:51:14 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The nearest I can get to a "helpful" explanation is that erotica is allowed and pornography is not. If your photo has "artistic merit" and does not depict actual human genitalia it will probably be allowed, even if it is "suggestive" of but does not explicitly depict certain activities or a state of mind. But that's just one opinion ... |
So far so good.
Now, independently of moral issues or any other side topics, can we just look at the image and evaluate it independently of the subject or discuss if the picture in question is an artistic photograph that is part of our struggle here?
|
|
|
|
05/05/2011 07:10:36 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The nearest I can get to a "helpful" explanation is that erotica is allowed and pornography is not. If your photo has "artistic merit" and does not depict actual human genitalia it will probably be allowed, even if it is "suggestive" of but does not explicitly depict certain activities or a state of mind. But that's just one opinion ... |
So far so good.
Now, independently of moral issues or any other side topics, can we just look at the image and evaluate it independently of the subject or discuss if the picture in question is an artistic photograph that is part of our struggle here?
|
I think it's been an interesting discussion, actually. Whenever a photo bends, but doesn't break, the rules, it's a good discussion. It helps people figure out the limits of the rule.
I think it's been a well rounded discussion, actually. Usually it breaks down much faster than this. :) |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 07:21:27 PM · #36 |
| I wouldn't consider that to be sex. I've seen far more explicit displays on the beach out in public. Bathing suit, underwear, it all looks the same. Sitting on someone's lap clothed and getting your butt squeezed does not imply sex to me. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 07:26:12 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Shanny403:
WARNING: I use the "v" word and the "p" word
I must first say that in no way am I defending my picture or was it's intention to offend (though I'm not about to apologize to those it did). I am quite honored to have sparked quite a debate! Now to look at this objectively...
I must state that by all intense and purposes I agree that it does suggest an act of "sex" (as foreplay I guess could be considered an act of sex). But the rules do state that the act of sex must be deemed inappropriate. Would I look at this picture and deem this as inappropriate given the challenge subject...no. Would I look at it and say that some people may take offense to it....yes. But IMO that is the beauty of art. People will look at it and see what they wish to see (hence why I will not apologize).
Looking at this particular rule in context I first looked at the genitalia section (as it was first). Genitalia quite literally is the latin translation of "sex organs". Now sex organs is defined as "The organs pertaining entirely to the sex of an individual, both physiologically and anatomically". This would include a females breasts as they pertain to the sex of an individual. Many people have evolved the meaning into the vagina or penis, though I would consider a picture of a 14 years old breasts child pornography (and dare I say so would the law considering the laws put in place to protect our minors). Having said that, and being rather literal on this definition nudes would be considered a DQ as it displays genitalia (or sexual organs). But here lies the freedom in artistic expression. Personally speaking I would never look at a nude or a suggestive photograph and get offended (heck, every movie I see now a days has some form of dare I say MORE sexually explicit acts). I would more look at the picture and try to understand what the artist was trying to convey, or what particular mood/message I got from the photograph. Then I would either love it or hate it or otherwise. I must admit when I first saw the "boobie" picture my first thought was "HOLY BOOBIES!" but the picture was not about boobs, or the fact that she was laying on her back, it was about the feeling I got from the picture (TOTAL envy. haha. What I would give for a pair of knockers like that). I understand not all photographers/artists look at pictures that way and I'm not knocking the ones that don't, it is just what I personally do. Nor do my views extend to everyone.
Now that I've spoken my mind, I have to say I'm loving the honest comments and intriguing discussion :) |
Congratulations Shannon on pushing the envelope. I agree that your image was appropriate for the challenge. It was also well crafted and definitely told a story. You deserved a higher score. And for what it's worth I gave you a 7. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 08:06:57 PM · #38 |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 08:11:50 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Rodin't Kiss does not have genital contact or direct genital stimulation. Although it is clearly sexual, it is not depicting an act of sex IMO. Foreplay is by definition the actions before sex, so by definition, not sex. The picture in question is depicting genital contact in a clearly recognizable sexual position. It is IMO depicting sex. I don't think the underwear changes that. I am not bringing this up as a moral issue, but as a an issue of rules. The rules clearly say that depicting acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council are not permitted. I copy and pasted the rule in the original post. My question for this post is, if this is photo is a depiction of an act of sex, which I believe it is, what makes it allowable? More simply, can we depict acts of sex if we have our models wear underwear? The morality of the picture is not my point today.
Rodin's Kiss in my view isn't sex. |
I think this is a reasonable interpretation and would back it up. If people are so narrow as to what defines an "act of sex", then why have it AND the genitalia rule? They sound pretty redundant if the only way we're really having sex is if we see the badingading going in the hooha.
Interestingly, we forget that Leroy was disqualified from the previous iteration of this challenge for a violation of the same rule in question. The photo has been removed, but I believe it did not show any genitalia, but implied that he was masturbating in bed while looking at a picture of shutterpug. I can forsee the hairsplitting that will now commence...
Message edited by author 2011-05-05 20:13:32. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 08:50:06 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to have a clear dividing line for a rule like this -- it is declared up front that the decision is a subjective one by a designated group.
The nearest I can get to a "helpful" explanation is that erotica is allowed and pornography is not. If your photo has "artistic merit" and does not depict actual human genitalia it will probably be allowed, even if it is "suggestive" of but does not explicitly depict certain activities or a state of mind. But that's just one opinion ... |
With all do respect there is no explicit rule against pornography. I am not sure that erotica, art, and pornography are entirely separable. There is however an explicit rule against depicting acts of sex. Shannon, the artist who created the photograph in question has as much stated that his photograph is depicting an act of sex. I don't think it matters if the photograph is tasteful, artistic, or not pornographic. The SC may have deemed this act of sex appropriate. If this is the case, then I would like to know what are appropriate acts of sex and what are inappropriate acts of sex.
We have always been a site that has closely followed our rules. If your picture is stamped one minute outside the allowable time, it is DQ'd. If you use layers in a basic challenge, out it goes. As we have many minors (including my children) viewing this site, I happen to agree with not showing genitalia and not depicting acts of sex. If we have the rule, it should be enforced. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 09:18:57 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Shannon, the artist who created the photograph in question has as much stated that his photograph is depicting an act of sex. |
her |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 09:40:18 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Shannon, the artist who created the photograph in question has as much stated that his photograph is depicting an act of sex. |
her |
My apologies. I had incorrectly assumed there was a male mind behind that photo.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2011 09:56:21 PM · #43 |
Don't apologize for the gender slip. I get it all the time :)
To clarify I said it would be considered an act of sex IF you consider foreplay an act of sex. Kissing is considered foreplay, yet I don't view it as an act of sex. A bum grab is considered foreplay yet I don't view that in the same light as well (which is what this picture is). Grinding (which is what this picture implies) happens all over the place. Heck, dirty dancing displays the lifting of skirts, showing of panties and grinding against one another in a sexual manner yet I would not forbid my children to watch it - which by the way has a PG rating of 13. I guess the "inappropriate" line is drawn at masturbation and beyond...
Now I have to agree with  mariuca and I'm letting this sleeping dog lie. If the powers that be decided that this was deserving of a DQ I would gracefully accept and move on to the next challenge. They obviously haven't and that decision is also fine with me. It is unfortunate that it caused you such distress, but respectfully I think it's time to start thinking about our next challenges again :) |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:10:28 PM · #44 |
I want to throw my two cents in.
I do not feel this picture is displaying acts of sex. They are wearing clothing. There can not be acts of sex with clothing on, foreplay sure, but that is not sex, its what comes hopefully before the sex.
But, the argument that breasts would be considered genitalia that would be incorrect. Genitalia are the organs required for reproduction, the breasts are not required for reproduction, however are required (or were in the old days) for sustaining that new life.
If the image was the same with implied nudity, then I would say they are displaying acts of sex.
that might actually be three cents worth, my prices went up.
Message edited by author 2011-05-05 22:15:49. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:17:35 PM · #45 |
Surely not a DQ. However, I sometimes vote with my young daughter looking and "advising" me on how I should vote. If I had come across your photo while she was present, I would have given a "holy moly" and moved on quickly.
On another note, I wouldn't have any problem with her voting in this challenge and casting a vote for your photo, on the other hand, I wouldn't want this photo Facebook profile or in her backpack either ! Does that make any sense ?
Originally posted by Shanny403:
Don't apologize for the gender slip. I get it all the time :)
To clarify I said it would be considered an act of sex IF you consider foreplay an act of sex. Kissing is considered foreplay, yet I don't view it as an act of sex. A bum grab is considered foreplay yet I don't view that in the same light as well (which is what this picture is). Grinding (which is what this picture implies) happens all over the place. Heck, dirty dancing displays the lifting of skirts, showing of panties and grinding against one another in a sexual manner yet I would not forbid my children to watch it - which by the way has a PG rating of 13. I guess the "inappropriate" line is drawn at masturbation and beyond...
Now I have to agree with mariuca and I'm letting this sleeping dog lie. If the powers that be decided that this was deserving of a DQ I would gracefully accept and move on to the next challenge. They obviously haven't and that decision is also fine with me. It is unfortunate that it caused you such distress, but respectfully I think it's time to start thinking about our next challenges again :) |
|
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:22:55 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Surely not a DQ. However, I sometimes vote with my young daughter looking and "advising" me on how I should vote. If I had come across your photo while she was present, I would have given a "holy moly" and moved on quickly. |
I have two teenage daughters, and honestly they see so much more then this on everyday tv and movies, that this wouldnt even register. I mean some of the stuff they put on TV these days is insane! Course, if they were 10, then I would be flipping that page lol. Sad they grow up to damn fast.. ugg.. ok now im depressed |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:24:16 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Shanny403:
but respectfully I think it's time to start thinking about our next challenges again :) |
+1 |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:35:15 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Shanny403:
Kissing is considered foreplay, yet I don't view it as an act of sex. A bum grab is considered foreplay yet I don't view that in the same light as well (which is what this picture is). |
Just to play the devil's advocate...I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about kissing your child (and rightly so), but would you ever think it reasonable to grab your child's ass like that while they sat on your lap? Why not?
Of course, just because it's fun it show inconsistencies in rulings (we all know they are there)...what's up with this shot that was not DQ'd?
 |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:44:30 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Socom:
I want to throw my two cents in.
I do not feel this picture is displaying acts of sex. They are wearing clothing. There can not be acts of sex with clothing on, foreplay sure, but that is not sex, its what comes hopefully before the sex.
But, the argument that breasts would be considered genitalia that would be incorrect. Genitalia are the organs required for reproduction, the breasts are not required for reproduction, however are required (or were in the old days) for sustaining that new life.
If the image was the same with implied nudity, then I would say they are displaying acts of sex.
that might actually be three cents worth, my prices went up. |
My bad. I went by the McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary's definition of sex organs. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:50:26 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Shanny403:
My bad. I went by the McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary's definition of sex organs. |
I have a feeling that was sarcastic :)
|
|
