nudity - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/28/2006 05:47:45 PM · #101

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Members are supposed to read the TOS and other documents about the site when they register.

key word "supposed". I forgot when i was15 years old I ALWAYS did what I supposed to do.

Maybe parental permission should be required for those under 18.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/28/2006 05:58:21 PM · #102

Originally posted by seenosun:

Maybe parental permission should be required for those under 18.

I believe the age 13 limit is based on Federal law, and the TOS and general site functions were last updated using professional legal consultation.

If parents want establish more stringent restrictions on their kids' internet use they are certainly free (and encouraged) to do so.

fotomann_forever

03/28/2006 06:01:06 PM · #103

Originally posted by GeneralE:

If parents want establish more stringent restrictions on their kids' internet use they are certainly free (and encouraged) to do so.

Very true! And tools are cheap or free to use to help them.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/28/2006 06:07:33 PM · #104

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by seenosun:
Maybe parental permission should be required for those under 18.

I believe the age 13 limit is based on Federal law, and the TOS and general site functions were last updated using professional legal consultation.

If parents want establish more stringent restrictions on their kids' internet use they are certainly free (and encouraged) to do so.

So you have no problem with a 50 year old man that directly contacts a 15 year old child through DPC to discuss that child's view on nudity. Maybe arrange a GTG to discuss in person. The whole time the child's parents are completely unaware of what is going on with DPC and it's members communication with their child.

I would love to see the federal law you are referring to that allows children under 18 to have access to web sites that contain nudity without parental consent.

edit to add: i am not a 50 year old man - just trying to illustrate how creepy things can get
edit to add: maybe the DPC lawyers missed this one passed last year.

There is a new law (18 USC section 2257) passed last year that makes posting a web site that contains obscenity (not specifically defined) nude models or models engaged in sex acts (real or simulated) a more difficult proposition in the US. This law requires an address posted in clear view on the web site where model releases and proof of age are on file and available for inspection by federal authorities. This address must be staffed during normal business hours (9-5) in case these authorities want to visit for the purpose of inspecting these releases and proof of age documents.

Message edited by author 2006-03-28 18:15:24.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/28/2006 06:22:20 PM · #105

Originally posted by seenosun:

edit to add: i am not a 50 year old man - just trying to illustrate how creepy things can get

I am.

I am creeped out by your completely illogical and unfounded "inference" about what I'd have a problem with -- the behavior you describe would, of course be a problem, but it has virtually nothing to do with the subject at hand. Such "worst-case" scenarios as you describe can (and do) happen regardless of the amount of "rules" or "controls" a site provides.

Ultimately, it is up to parents to monitor their kids' activities, not ours. This site provides, IMO, enough safeguards. And most of the kids who participate here seem to be pretty technically and socially savvy ...

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/28/2006 06:34:35 PM · #106

Yvonne - I have looked through your entries and cannot find a single nude in there! What photo was the comment made on? I'm probably going senile but it's driving me crazy trying to work out what could this young person have been offended by!
P

03/28/2006 06:43:14 PM · #107

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by seenosun:
edit to add: i am not a 50 year old man - just trying to illustrate how creepy things can get

I am.

I am creeped out by your completely illogical and unfounded "inference" about what I'd have a problem with -- the behavior you describe would, of course be a problem, but it has virtually nothing to do with the subject at hand. Such "worst-case" scenarios as you describe can (and do) happen regardless of the amount of "rules" or "controls" a site provides.

Ultimately, it is up to parents to monitor their kids' activities, not ours. This site provides, IMO, enough safeguards. And most of the kids who participate here seem to be pretty technically and socially savvy ...

It is DPC's responsibility to create an environment where children who aren't even old enough to drive aren't exposed to things that are innapproriate. I'm sure that it has been made really clear to the parents of 15 year olds on this site that their child is exposed to nudity here. I guess their children are "supposed" to show them the DPC TOS and other documents when they join the site.

03/28/2006 07:02:15 PM · #108

Originally posted by seenosun:

No. It is the parents' resposibility to look after their children and to 'protect' them from nudity if that is their choice. Do you know for a fact that this 'child', as you are referring to her, has, in fact, not discussed this issue with her parents? Do you know for a fact that this 'child's' parents object to her viewing of nudity?

Do you expect art museums to disallow persons under 18 from galleries that contain nudity? Do you expect art galleries to do the same?

DPC is an interactive art gallery (in my mind and probably in many others'). Why should the rules be different with an online gallery and a 'physical' gallery or museum?

As far as whether or not she is "supposed" to show her parents the TOS and other documents, that is between her and her parents. If her parents are monitoring her internet behavior (which we have no reason to assume is not the case, her comments notwithstanding), then they do indeed know about the things she is viewing. If they are not monitoring her internet behavior, then again, that is between her and her parents.

And besides, just who precisely is determining what is and is not 'appropriate' for a 15 year old 'child'? Me? You? DPC? Where is the line drawn? Bare female breasts? Bare behinds? Men without shirts? Unclothed-but-covered bodies?
I can almost certainly guarantee that if you were to go to her parents and tell them that you (or me or DPC) is going to decide what their daughter is able to see, they are more than likely going to raise a fuss and ask you just where you 'get off' deciding what is right for their daughter. I know I certainly would.

03/28/2006 07:20:54 PM · #109

Originally posted by saracat:

Originally posted by seenosun:

It is DPC's responsibility to create an environment where children who aren't even old enough to drive aren't exposed to things that are innapproriate. I'm sure that it has been made really clear to the parents of 15 year olds on this site that their child is exposed to nudity here. I guess their children are "supposed" to show them the DPC TOS and other documents when they join the site.

No. It is the parents' resposibility to look after their children and to 'protect' them from nudity if that is their choice. Do you know for a fact that this 'child', as you are referring to her, has, in fact, not discussed this issue with her parents? Do you know for a fact that this 'child's' parents object to her viewing of nudity?

Do you expect art museums to disallow persons under 18 from galleries that contain nudity? Do you expect art galleries to do the same?

DPC is an interactive art gallery (in my mind and probably in many others'). Why should the rules be different with an online gallery and a 'physical' gallery or museum?

As far as whether or not she is "supposed" to show her parents the TOS and other documents, that is between her and her parents. If her parents are monitoring her internet behavior (which we have no reason to assume is not the case, her comments notwithstanding), then they do indeed know about the things she is viewing. If they are not monitoring her internet behavior, then again, that is between her and her parents.

And besides, just who precisely is determining what is and is not 'appropriate' for a 15 year old 'child'? Me? You? DPC? Where is the line drawn? Bare female breasts? Bare behinds? Men without shirts? Unclothed-but-covered bodies?
I can almost certainly guarantee that if you were to go to her parents and tell them that you (or me or DPC) is going to decide what their daughter is able to see, they are more than likely going to raise a fuss and ask you just where you 'get off' deciding what is right for their daughter. I know I certainly would.

There are movies (considered a form of art) that children aren't allowed to view if they are under 18. I'm not making the decision for anyone. I suggested that written parental consent be required for children under 18. In that consent it should be clear that the parents understand that DPC contains nudity. Then the parents can make their own decision. If I see a child in my Apt building playing with matches should i be concerned that their parents might "raise a fuss" if I bring it to their attention that the child is playing with fire? Or should I wait for the building to burn down? or for the child to get hurt?

Most would be grateful that I was concerned enough to let them know what their child was doing when they are out of site.

03/28/2006 07:49:36 PM · #110

Originally posted by seenosun:

Originally posted by saracat:

Originally posted by seenosun:

It is DPC's responsibility to create an environment where children who aren't even old enough to drive aren't exposed to things that are innapproriate. I'm sure that it has been made really clear to the parents of 15 year olds on this site that their child is exposed to nudity here. I guess their children are "supposed" to show them the DPC TOS and other documents when they join the site.

No. It is the parents' resposibility to look after their children and to 'protect' them from nudity if that is their choice. Do you know for a fact that this 'child', as you are referring to her, has, in fact, not discussed this issue with her parents? Do you know for a fact that this 'child's' parents object to her viewing of nudity?

Do you expect art museums to disallow persons under 18 from galleries that contain nudity? Do you expect art galleries to do the same?

DPC is an interactive art gallery (in my mind and probably in many others'). Why should the rules be different with an online gallery and a 'physical' gallery or museum?

As far as whether or not she is "supposed" to show her parents the TOS and other documents, that is between her and her parents. If her parents are monitoring her internet behavior (which we have no reason to assume is not the case, her comments notwithstanding), then they do indeed know about the things she is viewing. If they are not monitoring her internet behavior, then again, that is between her and her parents.

And besides, just who precisely is determining what is and is not 'appropriate' for a 15 year old 'child'? Me? You? DPC? Where is the line drawn? Bare female breasts? Bare behinds? Men without shirts? Unclothed-but-covered bodies?
I can almost certainly guarantee that if you were to go to her parents and tell them that you (or me or DPC) is going to decide what their daughter is able to see, they are more than likely going to raise a fuss and ask you just where you 'get off' deciding what is right for their daughter. I know I certainly would.

There are movies (considered a form of art) that children aren't allowed to view if they are under 18. I'm not making the decision for anyone. I suggested that written parental consent be required for children under 18. In that consent it should be clear that the parents understand that DPC contains nudity. Then the parents can make their own decision. If I see a child in my Apt building playing with matches should i be concerned that their parents might "raise a fuss" if I bring it to their attention that the child is playing with fire? Or should I wait for the building to burn down? or for the child to get hurt?

Most would be grateful that I was concerned enough to let them know what their child was doing when they are out of site.

And elementry kids can go to any museum with nudity (as art) they want.

fotomann_forever

03/28/2006 08:03:08 PM · #111

Originally posted by seenosun:

Maybe the DPC lawyers missed this one passed last year.

There is a new law (18 USC section 2257) passed last year that makes posting a web site that contains obscenity (not specifically defined) nude models or models engaged in sex acts (real or simulated) a more difficult proposition in the US. This law requires an address posted in clear view on the web site where model releases and proof of age are on file and available for inspection by federal authorities. This address must be staffed during normal business hours (9-5) in case these authorities want to visit for the purpose of inspecting these releases and proof of age documents.

I'm sure the DPC legal advisors are fully aware of an irrevelant law. Those records you are referring to are age verification documents for models. Since DPC has no copyright to any photos presented on this site, it has no responsibility to produce records. That responsibility belongs to the photographers of the nude images.

Edit to add: I deleted it because I just didn't feel like arguing legalalities of an industry I'm sure I'm more versed than most.

Message edited by author 2006-03-28 21:20:31.

03/28/2006 08:24:29 PM · #112

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by seenosun:
Maybe the DPC lawyers missed this one passed last year.

There is a new law (18 USC section 2257) passed last year that makes posting a web site that contains obscenity (not specifically defined) nude models or models engaged in sex acts (real or simulated) a more difficult proposition in the US. This law requires an address posted in clear view on the web site where model releases and proof of age are on file and available for inspection by federal authorities. This address must be staffed during normal business hours (9-5) in case these authorities want to visit for the purpose of inspecting these releases and proof of age documents.

I'm sure the DPC legal advisors are fully aware of an irrevelant law. Those records you are referring to are age verification documents for models. Since DPC has no copyright to any photos presented on this site, it has no responsibility to produce records. That responsibility belongs to the photographers of the nude images.

I was referring to proof of age documentation for models not registered users under the age of 18.

For the uninformed some more specifics on USC HR2257:

Excerpts from article located at //www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003741.php
On June 23, new regulations from the Department of Justice went into effect, dramatically expanding the reach of a statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2257, intended to regulate the adult entertainment industry. Now it includes every blogger, online journalist, and website owner who displays any image falling under the law's broad (and vague) definition of "sexually explicit" materials.

How? The new regulations expand the definition of a so-called "secondary producer" of materials to include anyone "who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of" sexually explicit conduct. If you're a blogger or you host a website and write an online article or personal ad with a photo that falls under that definition, that means you.

Actual link to the text in the new Law:

//www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

I can email a PDF of the Law (Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 99/Tuesday, May 24, 2005/Rules and Regulations Page 29607) if anyone needs absolute clarity

edit to add: I would love to see the people that argue "exactly" doesn't really mean "Exactly" argue what the definition of "sexually explicit" is...

Edit to ask Fotoman: Did you edit and delete your post because you stand corrected?

Message edited by author 2006-03-28 20:46:34.

03/28/2006 08:27:36 PM · #113

Are you the Nudie Nazi?

03/28/2006 08:33:39 PM · #114

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Are you the Nudie Nazi?

I love nude photography. In fact I stated before i'm not a prude, far from it. My wife is a professional Dominatrix. I have no hang ups with nudity except when it comes to children. There is a time and place for everything. IMO, If a child is under 18 at a minimum they should have signed parental consent before having access to the nude photos on this site.

note: my wife has no clients under 18 with or without a note from home.

03/28/2006 08:54:21 PM · #115

Someone please explain to me how looking at a photo of a nude, normal human body equates to burning a building down.

What exactly are 'we' trying to protect these 14-18 year olds from anyway? The human body? I can pretty much guarantee that the photos on this site are some of the most tasteful (well, aside from cheese-boy ;D) photos of the human body that I've seen. And if you think that these 14-18 year olds haven't seen it before, then you must be very naive indeed. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that many (if not most) have seen naked human bodies in person long before they found DPC, whether it was in changing for gym class or hiding out 'under the bleachers'.

So what else might 'we' be protecting them from? Sex? When most of them at least get the basics of it in public school by sixth or seventh grade (age 12 or so)? Again, I think 'we' would be trying to prevent them from seeing things they've already been exposed to. And I know the argument for that: "well, we shouldn't be encouraging that sort of behavior" or "we don't have to continue to expose them to that". The plain truth of the matter is that they are going to see this sort of thing no matter what controls are put on this site. If they don't see it here, they will see it elsewhere, and frankly, at least here the images are tasteful and non-exploitative and not sexually explicit, and they can learn the basics about art (and nudity in art) in a supportive and creative environment.

Something else about the nude photos on this site that I don't think anyone else has pointed out: There are precious few places where young girls (and young guys) can go and see a wide variety of human shapes. The media bombard us with images of stick-thin celebrities and tell us that if we aren't perfectly thin or if we aren't a certain size/weight then we are undesirable. Yes, a lot of the images here are of those body-types, but would you deny a teenager the comfort of seeing a body like her own being celebrated as beautiful and the insight that maybe she (or he) doesn't have to starve herself to achieve "perfection"?

I'm not trying to say that I'm against informing parents that there is nudity on the site. But I also think that there are many ways to get around a parental consent form (forgery immediately comes to mind) and that causing an upraor about it or making the whole issue forbidden without the consent form will simply make it more attractive to teens, and thus make it more likely for the consent system to be abused. Frankly, I feel that if parents are concerned about it, then they will take steps to ensure that their children don't see it (parental controls, 'nanny' software, etc.) and they will be concerned enough to monitor their children's internet actions. If the parents don't have a problem with it, or don't care, I don't feel that it is anyone else's decision to make. Seeing a picture of an unclothed human body is not going to damage the psyche of a teenager. It is also not going to make them go out and have sex (which would require many more influencing factors, including parent-child interaction and involvement on a day-to-day level).

If you don't want to see nudity, fine. That's your choice. If you don't want your child to see nudity, fine. Again, your choice. But don't tell me what I should and shouldn't let my children see. If I, as a parent, am concerned about what they will be viewing, then I have the responsibility to monitor what they do and where they go, whether there's a consent form involved or not. DPC is not responsible for what my children see - or don't see.

03/28/2006 09:07:42 PM · #116

Originally posted by saracat:

If you don't want to see nudity, fine. That's your choice. If you don't want your child to see nudity, fine. Again, your choice. But don't tell me what I should and shouldn't let my children see. If I, as a parent, am concerned about what they will be viewing, then I have the responsibility to monitor what they do and where they go, whether there's a consent form involved or not. DPC is not responsible for what my children see - or don't see.

I'm not telling you anything like what your children should or shouldn't see ... I'm suggesting that parental consent should include children that are 14-18 year olds.

If parents were doing a decent job of monitoring their children's use of the internet then there would be no need for the government to impose overreaching laws that encroach my freedoms to post anything I desire on the internet. The job isn't getting done at home.

03/28/2006 09:09:59 PM · #117

Originally posted by seenosun:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Are you the Nudie Nazi?

I love nude photography. In fact I stated before i'm not a prude, far from it. My wife is a professional Dominatrix. I have no hang ups with nudity except when it comes to children. There is a time and place for everything. IMO, If a child is under 18 at a minimum they should have signed parental consent before having access to the nude photos on this site.

note: my wife has no clients under 18 with or without a note from home.

And just how do you propse to stop teens under 18 from entering a false birthdate in order to get around that restriction? Are we all going to have to send in a copy of our driver's license or birth certificate in order to join the site? (Never mind that it would increase the risk of identity theft...)

03/28/2006 09:12:21 PM · #118

So on the weekends are you standing in front of the museum telling minors they can't go in?

Message edited by author 2006-03-28 21:12:38.

03/28/2006 09:14:05 PM · #119

Originally posted by saracat:

Originally posted by seenosun:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Are you the Nudie Nazi?

I love nude photography. In fact I stated before i'm not a prude, far from it. My wife is a professional Dominatrix. I have no hang ups with nudity except when it comes to children. There is a time and place for everything. IMO, If a child is under 18 at a minimum they should have signed parental consent before having access to the nude photos on this site.

note: my wife has no clients under 18 with or without a note from home.

And just how do you propse to stop teens under 18 from entering a false birthdate in order to get around that restriction? Are we all going to have to send in a copy of our driver's license or birth certificate in order to join the site? (Never mind that it would increase the risk of identity theft...)

If the teen is visiting the site for Artistic content and their parents have no problems with their teens viewing nudity, why would there be a need to "get around" the requirement for parental consent?

03/28/2006 09:17:21 PM · #120

First off, I just re-read my last posts and realized I sounded bitchy and antagonistic. Sorry. Wasn't my intention.

Originally posted by seenosun:

I agree. Parents should do a better job of monitoring their children. The job isn't getting done at home, but that's kind of my point. Parents who are interested enough to monitor what their children do will already be aware that there is nudity on the site and will have had discussions about it with their children. I don't think that requiring a consent for older teens is going to make any of the uninterested/uninvolved parents sit up and take notice. I feel that it will only encourage the teens to be underhanded in gaining membership to a site that has nudity (see my last post) since the parent won't be interested enough to pay attention to it anyway.

And for what it's worth, I don't think that the government would stop passing overreaching laws just because parents decided to take an interest in what their children were doing on the 'net.

03/28/2006 09:18:33 PM · #121

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

So on the weekends are you standing in front of the museum telling minors they can't go in?

If I'm watching "Brokeback Mountain" and there is a group of unsupervised teens making immature comments about gay people I won't hesitate to ask an usher to remove them from the theatre.

Oh wait... the teens wouldn't be there because there is a rating system for Movies. No Kids allowed! I'm not even sure their allowed if accompanied by a parent.

03/28/2006 09:22:51 PM · #122

They are allowed if accompanied by a parent.
And I almost never see the R-rated restrictions enforced unless there is a police officer standing nearby.

03/28/2006 09:26:49 PM · #123

Originally posted by seenosun:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
So on the weekends are you standing in front of the museum telling minors they can't go in?

If I'm watching "Brokeback Mountain" and there is a group of unsupervised teens making immature comments about gay people I won't hesitate to ask an usher to remove them from the theatre.

Oh wait... the teens wouldn't be there because there is a rating system for Movies. No Kids allowed! I'm not even sure their allowed if accompanied by a parent.

an r -rated movie and photographic art on this site that does not allow photos of genitals isn't a direct comparison. More like a PG movie or normal TV after 9 kind of thing.

fotomann_forever

03/28/2006 09:28:42 PM · #124

Sorry, seenosun for deleting my comment, I deleted it before I thought anyone had read it, I dedcided I didn't want to get in an argument.

You quoted the law correctly the second time, but it still doesn't apply to DPC, because DPC is not a primary producer or distributor of "adult" material.

DPC is an art site, not a porn site. I've seen very few images here, I'dconsider erotica, nevertheless porn. AND, nudity in itself does not make an image pornography in a court of law.

Even if you can misread the law to try to defend your argument, it just doesn't hold in realilty.