I get more and more irritated by the pulling down of pictures when there does not seem any real good reason for it. Before I get confused about what is considered NSFW I would love to lay down a somewhat less strict rule than I see in used in GD by Luv4u in these threads;

http://www.prince.org/msg/100/212364 (DITA)

and

http://www.prince.org/msg/100/212363 (JENNA)

So lemme start with something I like. For instance; I love the fact that Luv4u these days states why she pulls down pictures. In this case Dita von Teese pics were pulled down without a clear reason, but I get a clearer picture on the Jenna thread, where she states Use links only folks. People that work, underagers, etc. access the org
I kinda reacted to that testy, cuz MY standard of NSFW is obviously different that Luv's.

The pics partially show breasts on Dita's thread, but everything I would consider proper, as there are no nipples showing, just the same amount of breasts I see on so many other threads. The only difference is that this is a stripper and the other pics I see are of people like Cameron Diaz and Mayte, who can prance around in strings and tiny bikini's on other threads and forums.

And on Jenna's thread I do not see ANY reason to obscure the pictures. Sure, she is mockingly posing in a sexy way, but the fact she wants to show of her undies are to me no reason to obscure these pics.

Then the reasons. 'People at work and underagers use this site.' This is true. But instead of pulling the pics down, shouldn't it suffice to edit NSFW into the thread title? In this way people at work know when to use discresion and underagers? What are they doing here anyways? And in what way is just a link to stop them from clicking it anyways?

I would love to see moderating used a little less intrusive and according to clear rules, not according to who considers what NSFW. I want rules.

Again I would like to stipulate that this is not an attack on Luv, I love our mods. This is just a case of rules and tastes and I would love those a little more obvious to all mods AND Orgers, so we can stop bitching about it on threads and spark more irritation.

And btw, happy holidays, the lot of you.

I am a male of the straight persuasion, that loves looking at naked/scantily clad women. It is in fact one of my favorite past times. I work as a teacher. If NSFW is posted at the title of a thread, I will not even look at it during my prep period or lunch break. I do agree with some of hueys assessments, especially on those instances where Lindsay Lohans and Britney Spears Beaver shots were not taken down. Far more tasteless than Tita Von Teese!

i think we could all benefit from a better understanding of what constitutes NSFW. I'd like to hear from all the other mods on this subject cause I usually regard NSFW for nipples, ass and private parts.

what say thee other mods?

ditto , Herman

karmatornado said:

True. I think beautiful pics of strong women are not evil. I mean, underage kids see more booty in any average hip-hop video or anything by Britney Spears or Beyonce.

In a world where Helmut Newton is revered as glamorous, why not a beautiful, non-explicit picture of Dita von Teese? Especially on a site dedicated to an artist who dedicated song lyrics to felatio and such?

It's a bit weird to want to 'protect' underagers, as they can follow the link anyways. Parenting should be done by parents, in my opinion. And to people at work a NSFW link in the title of the thread should suffice.

it sux my nipple tearing pic was taken off
WITHOUT a possibe link

sosgemini said:

nipples as in females only ?

and ass is that both sexes as well ?

I am really comfortable with the human body and i have raised my children that way also

to me nakedness isnt a bad thing but making the photo sexual would be NSFW

there are so many fine lines

I would tend to agree with SOS I guess for P.org

naked ass ( both sexes )
private parts girls and boys
and I guess female breasts that expose nipples

sosgemini said:

Is there a "rule" wrote on the NSFW title ?

With different mods having different ideas of what is ( or isn't ) NSFW,

it may be helpful if there was a set standard (?)

but the org is ALREADY a porn-drenched text site, why not let it go all the way?

In the Jenna Elfman thread Herman said something like "people who are at work should work and not be on the Org", and I feel that's spot on. How can people complain about NSFW stuff when they're doing shit they shouldn't be doing in the first place? As for the actual issue at hand, I don't give a fuck

sosgemini said:

I agree. I don't see any problem with male nipplege, or a photo that is suggestive - but when something steps over the line into porn territory (male or female) then we have a problem. That said, I still think that it is an Orgers responsibility to place 'NSFW' at the end of their thread title at least - at least people are then forwarned about what may lay inside - rather than opening it unaware due to some cryptic thread title and then finding all manner of carnal lust splayed before them and their boss

For the record, I love Dita Von Teese and the majority of her work is suggestive and more of the burlesque variety, so I would see no need for links - that said, again it is the Orgers duty to other members of the site to ensure that the line is not crossed.

That's what consitutes my line anyway, and I think that's fair - at the end of the day it's all about responsibility and respect for others that use this site - particularly younger Orgers (we've had to remove threads on beastiality before now - I kid you not) can you imagine a parents horror at seeing such a thing, or even a title that was misleading in the GD forum whilst they were passing by as their kid browsed the org? Not good. Like I said - responsibility.

I remember quite sometime ago suggesting that we have a seperate 'NSFW' forum, and that it was only accesible to those orgers over 18 (this would be recognised via either profile where it recognised that the user had stated their age upon sign up, or via electronic signature stating as such before entering that forum). Whether that was implementable however was another matter, but I personally think it would have then kept all members happy - those that like to post such threads (and I accept that covers a broad section of subjects as well as sexual matter) and those that do not enjoy seeing such threads in GD.

My

with Metta,
- BC

Thanks for the input, all. Appreciate it.

HamsterHuey said:

AMEN!! Let the parents decide what what's suitable for their own kids! like we got little ones on the org pahlease!
NSFW should be sufficient enough.

Shorty said:

actually we do. and the fact of the matter is that nudity is not allowed on this site, period. so in some cases, no...NSFW is not sufficient enough...and thats why we are trying to have a positive discussion about what NSFW means...

sosgemini said:

My 15 and 17 yr olds visit this sight ( and have for 2 yrs ) and I know of many other young Prince fans that do also

I do help decide what is suitable for them ... most of P.org IS and I have explained to them that some people will post randon porn threads so they understand ...that in no way makes it right for the posters of porn threads to post them on P.org though

Damn. Lost a good post. Damn' Org hickups.

hey mach, to answer your questions (i really wasn't ignoring you... )

but man nipples are okay...arses of both sexes aren't.

sosgemini said:

We got our own sites for that.

sosgemini said:

Lemme see if I can re-cap what I tried to post earlier.

To me NSFW means everything people flaunt on nude beaches. Personally I think women's nipples are as harmless as men's, but that is wether you still like to discriminate against women in this century or not. As this is an American site I can understand women's nipples are evil.

And when it comes to sexuality; that of course is a big
But sexy is different. The pics of Dita and Jenna that brought on this thread IMHO are sexy, not sexual, even though Jenna stand wide-legged in that first pic. She is clad, so all is cool with me.

Mach said:

to me, 15 and 17 year olds are not what I meant by "little ones"

sosgemini said:

you don't have to take a "tone" with me, I feel I am contributing to this "positive" discussion. I thought it was plainly obvious I was jokin around about the little ones on the org comment but...I didn't use a so it's my own fault I guess. by little ones I mean pre teen....like 12 and under. If there are an occasional 12 and under child who uses this site, I'm sure their responsible parent knows full well that this is a PRINCE site and therefor may have some suggestive images and or lyrics posted and should well inform and or closely monitor their viewing of this site where as NSFW should be sufficient.
fact of the matter is neither of the posts in question feature ANY nudity.

Shorty said:

Personally, as a parent, I would draw the line at 16. But often it depends on the child.

HamsterHuey said:

exactly!

Shorty said:

your right, neither of the posts in question feature any nudity. thats why i hope this thread will bring forth a great discussion so that we all can reach a better understanding of whats acceptable and whats not. (and what should be moderated and not.)

HamsterHuey said:

It does depend on the child

Mine grew up listening to Prince from the time they were in my womb ... I have always taken the time to be honest about everything I can with them including sexuality

My kids are mature and responsible ... yet I know some 20 yr olds that act more immature then most 12 yr olds

drawing lines really is about the mentality and maturity of each child

I personally dont dig most pron ...it is tatseless

I do love the nude human form in an art type way

my again

to each their own but again I don't feel P.org is the place for PORN...period

Mach said:

Neither do I for the record.
but...was anyone arguing that POV?

Shorty said:

No... does that matter ?

I was just stating my opinion

Mach said:

Nope...just thought maybe I had missed the porn argument and was unknowingly pro-porn on this site.