Author | Thread |
|
02/21/2006 04:16:08 PM · #1 |
Have just finished reading each and every post here.
Just have to say, while I don't agree with decision, Leroy and Linda have chosen to abide by it, so I will.
But! :D.... I'm sorry, I just don't see the hoopla. From my point of view, for the challenge that they were entered into, they fit perfectly. But then again, I've never seen masterbation or sex as sinful ;)
I also am not able to figure out just how masterbation is considered a 'sex act'. Yes, I know what the definition is... I just don't agree with it!
Leroy & Linda... LOVED the photos! :D |
|
|
02/21/2006 12:21:54 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: LMAO... Not yet, but this ranks pretty low on the sins committed list :-P |
Try and break them up over a period of days like I do...
Causes less heart attacks! |
|
|
02/21/2006 12:17:35 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by fotomann_forever: To end, I have no resentment in this DQ. The waters have been tested and lessons have been learned. |
Yes, but have you been to confession yet? |
LMAO... Not yet, but this ranks pretty low on the sins committed list :-P
|
|
|
02/21/2006 12:12:30 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: To end, I have no resentment in this DQ. The waters have been tested and lessons have been learned. |
Yes, but have you been to confession yet? |
|
|
02/21/2006 12:05:21 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by risu81:
Like I mentioned in the other thread, I agree with the rule on not showing male or female genitalia or any acts of sex. I'll even concede that fotomann and shutterpug's entries, in the spirit of the challenge, imply acts of sex; however, neither entry shows an act of sex IMHO. I realize that we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point. My last 2 cents. |
Well, in the context of the Sins challenge, it was certainly my intent to imply that the act was taking place. As, I've stated before, I fully support SC's decision to DQ the images for sex acts violations.
We pushed the edge, knowing we were risking DQ. All in all, we have no reason to whine about the DQ.
I, as one of the photographers DQ'd, do not see an inconsistency with the other photos that were not DQ'd.
grigrigirl's "Who Needs a Man", according to Langdon was the only image that has been presented in either thread that had a DQ request. In defense of her image, it was more "tastefully" done than our two images and I can see why SC (at that time) chose not to DQ it.
To end, I have no resentment in this DQ. The waters have been tested and lessons have been learned.
|
|
|
02/21/2006 09:16:22 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle: Please note that nowhere did we say that these challenge entries were "racy," "sexually explicit," "lewd," or anything like that. If we were, we would not allow the photographers to re-post these entries within their portfolio space.
ALL WE ARE SAYING is that these entries "show male or female genitalia or any acts of sex."
The rule does not imply or in fact even allow us to make any value judgment as to the raciness or lewdness of the photograph. It only calls for us to determine whether the photograph shows genitalia and/or depicts an act of sex. In this case, a majority of Site Council felt that this entry did depict an act of sex.
I can't speak for the entire Site Council regardng grigrigirl's entry, but in casting my own vote on that entry, I felt it was pretty clear that the model's hand was not where it was implied to be by the photograph. On fotomann and shutterpug's entries, I felt they were.
I do not consider my votes inconsistent; they are different votes made on different photographs. Two violate the rule, one does not.
~Terry |
Like I mentioned in the other thread, I agree with the rule on not showing male or female genitalia or any acts of sex. I'll even concede that fotomann and shutterpug's entries, in the spirit of the challenge, imply acts of sex; however, neither entry shows an act of sex IMHO. I realize that we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point. My last 2 cents. |
|
|
02/21/2006 07:23:12 AM · #7 |
Please note that nowhere did we say that these challenge entries were "racy," "sexually explicit," "lewd," or anything like that. If we were, we would not allow the photographers to re-post these entries within their portfolio space.
ALL WE ARE SAYING is that these entries "show male or female genitalia or any acts of sex."
The rule does not imply or in fact even allow us to make any value judgment as to the raciness or lewdness of the photograph. It only calls for us to determine whether the photograph shows genitalia and/or depicts an act of sex. In this case, a majority of Site Council felt that this entry did depict an act of sex.
I can't speak for the entire Site Council regardng grigrigirl's entry, but in casting my own vote on that entry, I felt it was pretty clear that the model's hand was not where it was implied to be by the photograph. On fotomann and shutterpug's entries, I felt they were.
I do not consider my votes inconsistent; they are different votes made on different photographs. Two violate the rule, one does not.
~Terry
|
|
|
02/21/2006 06:22:38 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by frisca: If I might venture a few guesses on what happened with grigrigirl's photo, here are my thoughts:
1. implied act, not actual depiction. Her hand isn't down her pants, its just on its way. (much like a lot of the drug photos we get. Picture of the drugs, etc)
|
Her hand isn't down her pants - she isn't wearing any - the angle could be deceiving, but it appears to me that she is actually touching her genitals. But again - no 'sex organs' are shown - and certainly no 'sex organs' in the act of sex. |
|
|
02/21/2006 06:18:03 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by HBunch: The challenge rules do not apply to portfolio pics, so you may post your image in your portfolio if you so wish. I personally do not find the images offensive, however, they DO depict an act of sex, which by the challenge rules is forbidden.
So lets see what all the talk is about! ;) (Just make sure you hit us up for a Thread title change if you post the pics here, so we can put up our 'warnings'.) |
If you recall julia bailey's (grlgril or whatever - I can never remember her user name) entry in the best of 2004 challenge - it portrayed the exact same 'sex act' and was quite provocatively titled - 'who needs a man' - but was not disqualified...now it was an incredibly senuous, beautifully lit image, but essentially the same content - so if you don't dq that (and I'm glad the SC didn't) then why were these photos disqualified?
some consistency please.
Edit: woops - it pays to read a whole thread. This post is more than a little redundant - but I'll leave it there as an independent statement of my opinion.
:).
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 06:19:14. |
|
|
02/21/2006 05:35:58 AM · #10 |
It wasn't that racey. I didn't care for the one of the guy pulling the pud, but to be honest with you none of them were that horrible. You don't need to write a long apology, noone was hurt by it, infact the pictures were less dirty than something you may see at 9 0'clock at night on cable TV.
The pictures shouldn't have been banned. I think the SC's on this site should change their names to the SS.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Let's not get personal please. |
|
|
02/21/2006 03:50:10 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by David.C: When groups lead, the rules are compromises. When compromises rule, any minority voice wins -- little by little... a site devoted to encouraging us to get outside of our boxes is continually looking for more boxes to put itself into. It just doesn't make much sense - David.C |
I'm gonna quote you! :p |
|
|
02/21/2006 02:54:47 AM · #12 |
Oh I agree. I was just trying to look at things from the SC perspective. |
|
|
02/21/2006 02:36:34 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by yanko: Originally posted by David.C: Originally posted by yanko: ... Perhaps a better example would be two people having intercourse but the photo doesn't actually show any genitals because err.. umm.. they are covered by two pressing bodies. I figure that type of photo wouldn't be allowed under the current rules even though no genitalia was shown. One could also argue with that situation that they may not actually be having intercourse (since you don't see the private parts) but the photo leads you to believe they are at that moment. Does that make sense? |
Like this one? ;)
David |
I never said the rule "works" as it is written or that it has been applied evenly for all images. If I was the author of that rule and the sole judge for judging this photo I probably wouldn't have a problem with it because it's not explicit because so little is shown. If their entire bodies were shown in this position... then I guess I probably would rule it a DQ. Just for contrast, fotoman's photo was focus squarely on the crotch area where as this shows feet. The subject selected here is the difference, IMO.
Just to be clear, I am just going by how the rule is currently stated and my interpretation of it. Personally, I don't think having this rule works but DPC has it and should be applied just like any other rule. Really, the only problem here is the selective enforcement. I've offered a reasonable explanation of this selective enforcement, which may not be selective at all but I'm not on the SC so I could be wrong. |
Easy. I'm on your side. I'm just getting to feeling well after a week in bed -- just having a bit of fun. Although not as much as they are it would appear. :D
---
But I will reitterate a point that has been made many times. The rulings of the SC appear inconsistent to us -- but not to them. If they ruled on every image -- for every possible offence -- the consistency would probably be much better. But that is just not possible. They only rule on the images that are brought to their attention -- and then only one the reason it was brought to their attention (unless something obvious comes up).
I personally think they are doing as well as any group can be expected to. When groups lead, the rules are compromises. When compromises rule, any minority voice wins -- little by little. The only thing I find particularly odd about all this hoopla is that a site devoted to encouraging us to get outside of our boxes is continually looking for more boxes to put itself into. It just doesn't make much sense.
David
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:19:09 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by David.C: Originally posted by yanko: ... Perhaps a better example would be two people having intercourse but the photo doesn't actually show any genitals because err.. umm.. they are covered by two pressing bodies. I figure that type of photo wouldn't be allowed under the current rules even though no genitalia was shown. One could also argue with that situation that they may not actually be having intercourse (since you don't see the private parts) but the photo leads you to believe they are at that moment. Does that make sense? |
Like this one? ;)
David |
I never said the rule "works" as it is written or that it has been applied evenly for all images. If I was the author of that rule and the sole judge for judging this photo I probably wouldn't have a problem with it because it's not explicit because so little is shown. If their entire bodies were shown in this position... then I guess I probably would rule it a DQ but I would need to see that photo to judge it and we don't have that version. Btw, fotoman's photo was focus squarely on the crotch area where as this shows feet. The subject selected here is an important factor to consider, IMO.
Just to be clear, I am just going by how the rule is currently stated and my interpretation of it. Personally, I don't think having this rule works but DPC has it and should be applied just like any other rule. Really, the only problem here is the selective enforcement. I've offered a reasonable explanation of this selective enforcement, which may prove there is consistency but I'm not on the SC so I could be wrong.
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 02:23:58. |
|
|
02/21/2006 02:10:46 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by TooCool: IMHO This whole conversation is rediculous. I can't believe for one that either of these shots would be considered lude. In bad taste, perhaps. A poor excuse for humour, maybe. Sexually explicit, seen MTV lately?
I don't see any connection with past shots. I don't see any reason to bash S/C for being inconsistant (they can't rule on DQ if no one asks for it). I don't see any problem with collaborative efforts (two ribbon winners in a past challenge...) No cheese was harmed in the filming of either of these shots. I don't understand why they were DQ'ed but they were. Even if they were reinstated now it would simply sqew the statistics of the site. It's a privately run site. The shots were DQ'ed. Right or wrong it's the right of the site to do so. It's not like there are fabulous prizes at stake. It's just a silly waste of electrons to continue this conversation... Put them in your ports. If they aren't allowed here, put them on another site and post links. It's over and done with. I'm going to bed... |
Copied from the other thread cause I'm tired... |
|
|
02/21/2006 02:07:03 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by yanko: ... Perhaps a better example would be two people having intercourse but the photo doesn't actually show any genitals because err.. umm.. they are covered by two pressing bodies. I figure that type of photo wouldn't be allowed under the current rules even though no genitalia was shown. One could also argue with that situation that they may not actually be having intercourse (since you don't see the private parts) but the photo leads you to believe they are at that moment. Does that make sense? |
Like this one? ;)
David
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:50:41 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
Actually, no it wasn't transpiring. Risking TMI, it would be quite difficult to "maintain" and to set up camera and pose. The "bulge" was actually my hand pressing against the top of my shorts.
If you'll notice the position of my hand, it would be quite inefficient for such task. |
I probably should have clarified my post. I figured you weren't actually doing it but the point of the shot was to give the impression that you were doing it right then and there. At least that's how I took it when I saw the photos. And based on the rules as I understood them you couldn't do that. Showing events as they lead up to the act or moments aftewards were fine but not ones depicting the sex as it happens.
Perhaps a better example would be two people having intercourse but the photo doesn't actually show any genitals because err.. umm.. they are covered by two pressing bodies. I figure that type of photo wouldn't be allowed under the current rules even though no genitalia was shown. One could also argue with that situation that they may not actually be having intercourse (since you don't see the private parts) but the photo leads you to believe they are at that moment. Does that make sense?
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 01:54:48. |
|
|
02/21/2006 01:35:00 AM · #18 |
Opens up a whole new world for "POLISHED TOOL PHOTOGRAPHY"
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:19:16 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO: Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
Actually, no it wasn't transpiring. Risking TMI, it would be quite difficult to "maintain" and to set up camera and pose. The "bulge" was actually my hand pressing against the top of my shorts.
If you'll notice the position of my hand, it would be quite inefficient for such task. |
So size does matter ;) |
Yes : I hope you're referring to focal length and maximum aperture :-D
|
|
|
02/21/2006 12:57:44 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
Actually, no it wasn't transpiring. Risking TMI, it would be quite difficult to "maintain" and to set up camera and pose. The "bulge" was actually my hand pressing against the top of my shorts.
If you'll notice the position of my hand, it would be quite inefficient for such task. |
So size does matter ;) |
|
|
02/20/2006 10:21:05 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by crayon: it all depends on WHO is looking at what.
I know a friend who, when looking at, say, the mona lisa, would VERY likely say "nice chest" |
Wow, you hang out with Jacko?
~Terry
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:12:44 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by crayon: it all depends on WHO is looking at what.
I know a friend who, when looking at, say, the mona lisa, would VERY likely say "nice chest" |
Really good point you make there, crayon.
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:51:54 PM · #23 |
it all depends on WHO is looking at what.
I know a friend who, when looking at, say, the mona lisa, would VERY likely say "nice chest"
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 21:52:30. |
|
|
02/20/2006 09:46:25 PM · #24 |
"transpiring" ? huh? what're ya talking about here? ;-)
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:32:20 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
Actually, no it wasn't transpiring. Risking TMI, it would be quite difficult to "maintain" and to set up camera and pose. The "bulge" was actually my hand pressing against the top of my shorts.
If you'll notice the position of my hand, it would be quite inefficient for such task.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 21:34:10.
|
|