| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2011 02:32:06 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Socom:
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 :) |
One thing you can definitely take away from this Shannon is that you have stirred the pot. And for an artist, thats a good thing. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 05:53:20 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rodin's Kiss in my view isn't sex. |
So, for those of you who honestly believe this, if you found your daughter in such a position you would be fine with it...because it is NOT sex, right?
Oh and by the way Doc, these parts you refer to do have names and they are acceptable.
I always marvel at the fact that in most of North America we have no problems whatsoever in allowing all types of gratuitous violence in movies but cringe and get all bent out of shape whenever a bare breast is seen.
Makes one wonder.
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-05-06 05:53:51. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 06:41:07 AM · #53 |
| this image is only PG-13, where's the problem? |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 12:06:55 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rodin's Kiss in my view isn't sex. |
So, for those of you who honestly believe this, if you found your daughter in such a position you would be fine with it...because it is NOT sex, right?
Oh and by the way Doc, these parts you refer to do have names and they are acceptable.
I always marvel at the fact that in most of North America we have no problems whatsoever in allowing all types of gratuitous violence in movies but cringe and get all bent out of shape whenever a bare breast is seen.
Makes one wonder.
Ray |
You are bringing up a bunch of red herrings Ray. It only problem is that there is a rule and the rule is very vague. Frankly grigrigirl's shot seems like a no-brainer DQ more than this current one, it has nothin to do with prudishness or whatever word you want to use to label those who disagree with you.
As for the names I was making a complete joke. I'm a friggin doctor for crying out loud...
Message edited by author 2011-05-06 12:07:52. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 01:17:18 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rodin's Kiss in my view isn't sex. |
So, for those of you who honestly believe this, if you found your daughter in such a position you would be fine with it...because it is NOT sex, right?
Oh and by the way Doc, these parts you refer to do have names and they are acceptable.
I always marvel at the fact that in most of North America we have no problems whatsoever in allowing all types of gratuitous violence in movies but cringe and get all bent out of shape whenever a bare breast is seen.
Makes one wonder.
Ray |
You are bringing up a bunch of red herrings Ray. It only problem is that there is a rule and the rule is very vague. Frankly grigrigirl's shot seems like a no-brainer DQ more than this current one, it has nothin to do with prudishness or whatever word you want to use to label those who disagree with you.
As for the names I was making a complete joke. I'm a friggin doctor for crying out loud... |
I agree that there are a lot of red herrings in this discussion. Here again is the rule that is being debated; copied and pasted: It is under the heading May Not "submit a photograph depicting male or female genitalia, or acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council."
If this photo depicts an act of sex, which I think most would agree that it does, then it should be considered for DQ under our rules. The only question is what is the line of inappropriate. My interpretation of inappropriate would be depicting genital stimulation. I think this photo, do to the proximity of the models genitalia, are inappropriately depicting an act of sex. I don't think the underwear mitigate the depiction.
If this act of sex is thought to be appropriate, I would ask then what the line of inappropriate is. Scant clothing IMO changes very little. Tasteful or not pornographic is too hard to test or judge. If we have a rule, it should be followed. Parents trust that we follow our rules when allowing children on this site. If the community does not want the rule, it should be discarded, and there will be no expectation that the rule is being followed by those making the decision to view or to allow viewing of the DPC. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 01:22:48 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I agree that there are a lot of red herrings in this discussion. Here again is the rule that is being debated; copied and pasted: It is under the heading May Not "submit a photograph depicting male or female genitalia, or acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council." |
An important part of the rule description is the last line - 'by a majority of the Site Council'. It is therefore up to Site Council to determine whether the specific images are inappropriate our not. You can debate until blue in the face, but SC will make the call, not you. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 01:38:15 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rodin's Kiss in my view isn't sex. |
So, for those of you who honestly believe this, if you found your daughter in such a position you would be fine with it...because it is NOT sex, right?
Oh and by the way Doc, these parts you refer to do have names and they are acceptable.
I always marvel at the fact that in most of North America we have no problems whatsoever in allowing all types of gratuitous violence in movies but cringe and get all bent out of shape whenever a bare breast is seen.
Makes one wonder.
Ray |
You are bringing up a bunch of red herrings Ray. It only problem is that there is a rule and the rule is very vague. Frankly grigrigirl's shot seems like a no-brainer DQ more than this current one, it has nothin to do with prudishness or whatever word you want to use to label those who disagree with you.
As for the names I was making a complete joke. I'm a friggin doctor for crying out loud... |
I agree that there are a lot of red herrings in this discussion. Here again is the rule that is being debated; copied and pasted: It is under the heading May Not "submit a photograph depicting male or female genitalia, or acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council."
If this photo depicts an act of sex, which I think most would agree that it does, then it should be considered for DQ under our rules. The only question is what is the line of inappropriate. My interpretation of inappropriate would be depicting genital stimulation. I think this photo, do to the proximity of the models genitalia, are inappropriately depicting an act of sex. I don't think the underwear mitigate the depiction.
If this act of sex is thought to be appropriate, I would ask then what the line of inappropriate is. Scant clothing IMO changes very little. Tasteful or not pornographic is too hard to test or judge. If we have a rule, it should be followed. Parents trust that we follow our rules when allowing children on this site. If the community does not want the rule, it should be discarded, and there will be no expectation that the rule is being followed by those making the decision to view or to allow viewing of the DPC. |
Most? Really? LOL.
It's in the hands of council, should they wish it. Other than that, it's just a bunch of people blabbering on about nothing. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 01:41:09 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
If this act of sex is thought to be appropriate, I would ask then what the line of inappropriate is. |
There is no "line" which can be described in a rule. When a Supreme Court Justice was asked "what constitutes pornography," he replied "I can't tell you, but I know it when I see it."
Message edited by author 2011-05-06 13:41:59. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:01:00 PM · #59 |
| Here it would always be nice to have some transparency and know what the vote was on SC. was it 12-0? 7-6? Personally it doesn't matter to me because I am never shooting something like this, but in other instances where the rule is being tested, it's nice to know if it was a strong vote by the SC in support or just barely. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:01:50 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rodin's Kiss in my view isn't sex. |
So, for those of you who honestly believe this, if you found your daughter in such a position you would be fine with it...because it is NOT sex, right?
Oh and by the way Doc, these parts you refer to do have names and they are acceptable.
I always marvel at the fact that in most of North America we have no problems whatsoever in allowing all types of gratuitous violence in movies but cringe and get all bent out of shape whenever a bare breast is seen.
Makes one wonder.
Ray |
You are bringing up a bunch of red herrings Ray. It only problem is that there is a rule and the rule is very vague. Frankly grigrigirl's shot seems like a no-brainer DQ more than this current one, it has nothin to do with prudishness or whatever word you want to use to label those who disagree with you.
As for the names I was making a complete joke. I'm a friggin doctor for crying out loud... |
I agree that there are a lot of red herrings in this discussion. Here again is the rule that is being debated; copied and pasted: It is under the heading May Not "submit a photograph depicting male or female genitalia, or acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council."
If this photo depicts an act of sex, which I think most would agree that it does, then it should be considered for DQ under our rules. The only question is what is the line of inappropriate. My interpretation of inappropriate would be depicting genital stimulation. I think this photo, do to the proximity of the models genitalia, are inappropriately depicting an act of sex. I don't think the underwear mitigate the depiction.
If this act of sex is thought to be appropriate, I would ask then what the line of inappropriate is. Scant clothing IMO changes very little. Tasteful or not pornographic is too hard to test or judge. If we have a rule, it should be followed. Parents trust that we follow our rules when allowing children on this site. If the community does not want the rule, it should be discarded, and there will be no expectation that the rule is being followed by those making the decision to view or to allow viewing of the DPC. |
Most? Really? LOL.
It's in the hands of council, should they wish it. Other than that, it's just a bunch of people blabbering on about nothing. |
The rule doesn't state that all acts of sex are to be DQd. So it really doesn't matter if most people agree that is is an act of sex. That's not the issue.
1. I agree that this shows an act of sex.
2. I know that the rule states that any sex acts (oops, sorry, any photos of sex acts :) deemed inappropriate by the SC are to be DQd.
3. I have no problem with the SC finding this photo appropriate for this challenge. It's not my taste, but I understand the ruling.
Yes, it is an act of sex. No, it doesn't break the rule, because the SC finds it appropriate.
Makes sense.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:21:36 PM · #61 |
| Wendy pretty well sums it up. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:32:32 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wendy pretty well sums it up. |
Hmm. I do believe bassbone summed it up for more eloquently. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:32:51 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rodin's Kiss in my view isn't sex. |
So, for those of you who honestly believe this, if you found your daughter in such a position you would be fine with it...because it is NOT sex, right?
Oh and by the way Doc, these parts you refer to do have names and they are acceptable.
I always marvel at the fact that in most of North America we have no problems whatsoever in allowing all types of gratuitous violence in movies but cringe and get all bent out of shape whenever a bare breast is seen.
Makes one wonder.
Ray |
You are bringing up a bunch of red herrings Ray. It only problem is that there is a rule and the rule is very vague. Frankly grigrigirl's shot seems like a no-brainer DQ more than this current one, it has nothin to do with prudishness or whatever word you want to use to label those who disagree with you.
As for the names I was making a complete joke. I'm a friggin doctor for crying out loud... |
Red herring or not you didn't answer the first question. As for the names, I am fully aware you are a doctor and still find it amazing that adults can't call things by their proper names.
If this is a sex act, then let us hope we never have a challenge on "HopScotch" as most images would probably be DQ'd.
Lastly, to suggest that this has nothing to do with "Prudishness" is something that truly is debatable.
Ray
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:52:44 PM · #64 |
With this much action, surely there must be a challenge coming soon...
Porn,S oft erotica, sex. Show us your best without getting DQ.d
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:54:04 PM · #65 |
Sheesh...prudes.
Just be glad no one went with "Donkey Punch" |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 03:00:14 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Sheesh...prudes.
Just be glad no one went with "Donkey Punch" |
i have a tshirt that reads donkey punch champion. im definitely using it in an upcoming challenge. going to suggest a self portrait challenge now... |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 03:37:25 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by LVicari:
With this much action, surely there must be a challenge coming soon...
Porn,S oft erotica, sex. Show us your best without getting DQ.d |
If Wendy enters a squirrel image, I'm going to close my membership...;-P |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 03:46:54 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by LVicari:
With this much action, surely there must be a challenge coming soon...
Porn,S oft erotica, sex. Show us your best without getting DQ.d |
Might take nothing more than a screenshot of the DPC Home page ...  |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 03:50:36 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by LVicari:
With this much action, surely there must be a challenge coming soon...
Porn,S oft erotica, sex. Show us your best without getting DQ.d |
If Wendy enters a squirrel image, I'm going to close my membership...;-P |
ahahaaaaaaaa, that made me laugh :p |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 03:59:00 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by LVicari:
With this much action, surely there must be a challenge coming soon...
Porn,S oft erotica, sex. Show us your best without getting DQ.d |
If Wendy enters a squirrel image, I'm going to close my membership...;-P |
I do have a squirrel photo that I didn't enter, because I figured it would be DQd for full frontal nudity. :P
Message edited by author 2011-05-06 20:17:04. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 04:15:22 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by LVicari:
With this much action, surely there must be a challenge coming soon...
Porn,S oft erotica, sex. Show us your best without getting DQ.d |
If Wendy enters a squirrel image, I'm going to close my membership...;-P |
What about ducks?  |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 04:15:48 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
|
::promptly faints:: |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 04:17:06 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What about ducks?
|
I don't think this is exactly how Clive defines "glee"...I could be wrong though...;-P |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 04:20:28 PM · #74 |
It's only human sex and genitalia that are forbidden.
I got permission from SC about this before entering. I still think it's beautiful and majestic...but would not have had they been human instead. I think our humanness is what makes us so uncomfortable about sex.
 |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 07:52:34 PM · #75 |
|
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: 08/17/2025 07:17:40 PM EDT.
