| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2006 08:44:35 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
THIS image survived in "Best of 2004"; how is it more acceptable?
R. |
Ditto. This is the image that came to mind after seeing Pug's other thread. I don't understand why one is acceptable and one isn't.
I personally would prefer that such images weren't allowed (those that go a bit further than nudity), but I also feel that if one is allowed than the others should be as well. Too many instances of inconsistency here.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 08:49:41 PM · #52 |
 ...and this one? I apologize in advance for having a good memory. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 08:54:27 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Ok, that's cool -- but just for further clarification...
What is the difference between
Originally posted by Challenge Rules:
acts of sex |
and
Originally posted by Terms of Service:
explicitly sexual content |
?
|
by 'acts of sex' one can get pregnant whereas 'explicitly sexual content' one only thinks of getting pregnant. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 09:00:12 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by David.C:
Ok, that's cool -- but just for further clarification...
What is the difference between
Originally posted by Challenge Rules:
acts of sex |
and
Originally posted by Terms of Service:
explicitly sexual content |
?
|
by 'acts of sex' one can get pregnant whereas 'explicitly sexual content' one only thinks of getting pregnant. |
well there aint on way getting pregnant was gonna happen in my pic! |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 09:06:42 PM · #55 |
| An innocent child (if such exists) would look at either picture and snicker over seeing someone in his/her underwear. That is all. There is no explicit sex act going on in either picture. These pictures are only as dirty as you are. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 09:55:43 PM · #56 |
Photoman! the photos rock! :)
Sorry about the DQ tho :( |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:04:32 PM · #57 |
| I think both of those shots getting DQ'd is kinda ridiculous. I also think the shots that you all have added to this link are ones that are borderline DQ...but I still don't think any of these shots should be including ShutterPug and Fotomann |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:11:30 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by angela_packard:
I think both of those shots getting DQ'd is kinda ridiculous. I also think the shots that you all have added to this link are ones that are borderline DQ...but I still don't think any of these shots should be including ShutterPug and Fotomann |
Yeah, what she said! I feel bad for SC sometimes... But I get over it pretty quick.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:17:22 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by yanko:
[
-----------------
The rules as I've read them clearly say that sexual organs in the "act of sex" is not allowed. Fotoman's photo clearly shows that and this photo doesn't. |
I must get my eyes checked again.........where exactly did we see sexual organs in "the act of sex???"
What we have here is perhaps at best a prelude to what might transpire.
There is no way on earth that this can be considered an act of sex.... Heaven forbid if it is.... I can see the cancellation of all kinds of baseball and football games.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:32:10 PM · #60 |
Don't you get it? You knew masterbation was a sin, that's why you submitted it to the sin challenge. When dealing with sin you are naturally dealing with religion and religion is a fickle beast. It's very hard to teach kids about sin without them becoming interested in sin and not everyone is clear on where the line is drawn on what a sin actually is. Because it is a sin to some people it is not something they want their children knowing about. We must protect them from understanding human anatomy and biology at all cost! You are only allowed to express the idea of sin without showing the sin itself, that way only actual sinners will know what you are referring to. Of course, you came close to this since some of the more innocent of the kids will have no idea what it is about but others are right on the border, about to take the plunge off the cliff into the netherrealms of immorality and you may have pushed them over the edge. Imagine how many lil whippersnappers are out there fondling themselves to these provocative images right now! They will likely all become psychotpaths, serial killers, and rapists incredibly soon. Or maybe they will talk to their parents and learn about sex. The worst crime would be if they learned that masterbation was a safe and pleasurable alternative to accidentally impregnating their peers at a young age; we wouldn't keep getting more little ones to keep brainwashed in the dark closets slowly but surely becoming more curious about sin.
I'm only joking by the way. just thought it was a funny topic and funny photos. I enjoyed them way too much. ;) |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:38:38 PM · #61 |
i have to disagree with SC on this one..
the two photos should NEVER have been DQed..
Julia's and Nico's photos both show more than either of the two pics DQed...
Shame on you SC
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:42:25 PM · #62 |
Could SC explain their reasoning? It seems many of us are wondering why there's an inconsistency.
Also, I don't understand why it's not okay for an image to be in a challenge yet it's okay for it to be in a portfolio? The same eyes can access both. Seems the rule should apply to both. Either it's allowed on the site, or it's not. No?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:43:30 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I must get my eyes checked again.........where exactly did we see sexual organs in "the act of sex???"
What we have here is perhaps at best a prelude to what might transpire.
There is no way on earth that this can be considered an act of sex.... Heaven forbid if it is.... I can see the cancellation of all kinds of baseball and football games.
Ray |
The difference between these shots and a sporting game is that in these shots the people were partially undressed with their hands insidetheir pants, and on TV the players are fully dressed and not looking at sexually suggestive photographs.
I don't regard myself as deviant, or angry, or emotional in any way about Internet photography challenges, but I do feel that these shots totally deserved the DQ. There is a rule banning challenge entries that depict sexual acts, and here the rule was enforced. I would also support a DQ on most of the other shots that people have posted here. There is a line, and IMHO it was definitely crossed here.
These were definitely portrayals of sexual acts, and we all know it, whether it offended you individually or not.
I personally was offended, and accept the apologies proffered by both in the spirit in which it was intended.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:47:10 PM · #64 |
Maybe someone in the SC can tell us why these 2 images were DQ'd yet the one already pointed out in a post above was worthy of a "Best Of..." award.
The image above shows her hand in her crotch while she is fondling her breast and then goes further... and has actual nudity. It has a more professional look to it.
Question is... does anyone on the SC have the cajones to respond to this post... because the truth of the matter is the application of this rule isn't being done so consistently or fairly.
If you make an image that kicks butt and just a great photo in general.... it's ok. If your image doesn't look like a pro photographer took it but shows a similar act... it's DQ'd.
But its not surprising. Politically correctness is such a joke. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:48:10 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Originally posted by elemess:
Whew! For a while there, I was afraid both of them would ribbon. Not sure I could have stayed away from -- er... make that continued to visit DPC while they were on the home page. Scary thought. |
You have the option to hide photos containing nudity from your preferences page. Those images will not show up then after voting is over. |
Well, I got pretty damn tired of seeing the 2nd place entry of the two semi-nudes on my home page and tried to hide it by modifying my preferences and it did not work for me. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:54:38 PM · #66 |
Given some of the responses on this thread, I have only one question.
If I tuck TWO hands into my pants, does that make me ambidextrous or bisexual?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:59:24 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
Given some of the responses on this thread, I have only one question.
If I tuck TWO hands into my pants, does that make me ambidextrous or bisexual? |
neither, just very big. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:01:09 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by A1275:
These were definitely portrayals of sexual acts, and we all know it, whether it offended you individually or not. |
What we have here is a suggestion of a sexual act.... no more, no less. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:05:00 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What we have here is a suggestion of a sexual act.... no more, no less. |
I respectfully disagree. I don't think we need to see actual genitalia to be sure a specific sexual act was intended to be portrayed.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2006-02-19 23:05:29. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:05:45 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by A1275:
These were definitely portrayals of sexual acts, and we all know it, whether it offended you individually or not. |
What we have here is a suggestion of a sexual act.... no more, no less. |
What we have here is two overweight people seeking attention......and getting it. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:08:53 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by sage:
Question is... does anyone on the SC have the cajones to respond to this post... because the truth of the matter is the application of this rule isn't being done so consistently or fairly.
|
Does it really matter what we say? Someone is just going to argue, call us worthless, and say we are playing favorites.
You all know why some photos are DQed and others are not. Because the majority of the SC voted that way. What else is there to say?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:13:44 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Does it really matter what we say? Someone is just going to argue, call us worthless, and say we are playing favorites.
You all know why some photos are DQed and others are not. Because the majority of the SC voted that way. What else is there to say? |
I don't recall anyone calling you worthless... far from it.
For the record.....open discussion is never a wasted entity. It is only through such discourse that we can ever hope to arrive at solutions. If indeed everything was perfect, there would be no discussion on the issue at hand.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:15:27 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by A1275:
These were definitely portrayals of sexual acts, and we all know it, whether it offended you individually or not. |
What we have here is a suggestion of a sexual act.... no more, no less. |
What we have here is two overweight people seeking attention......and getting it. |
In addition to your talents as a photographer, you can also read minds... Besides... if they were skinny... would that alter your mindset.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:16:24 PM · #74 |
When we vote, we go with the majority. In a couple of the instances ya'll have mentioned, the pictures were from 2003 or 2004. The SC has changed over that time. Those that may have voted no dq on those may not even be on SC now, so it may not be fair to hold up a picture from 3 years ago and say, "But, look." For these shots, the majority of voting SC felt it crossed the line.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:24:55 PM · #75 |
How many changes have there been from Feb 2005? This whole thing about how the sc is constantly changing and how one might vote on one picture and not on another is something that, to me at least, is getting a bit old. Isn't there any standard of conduct you guys can agree on so the results are more consistant?
I respect each of you as photographers and believe you are trying to do a good job, so whenever I post, I'm not trying to degrade what you do. I'm more concerned with how I perceive "the rules" are being applied. |
|
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: 06/23/2025 08:20:31 PM EDT.
