NSFW prefix

Hi,

Is it possible to require a 'NSFW' prefix on all posts containing nudes and the like? I hadn't noticed what subsection a post was in when I clicked on it and it was rather embarressing.

Many thanks,

Ben

would expect folk to realize that. It's just common sense. The idea s to prevent surprise, especially in the workplace. Please let me know the URL of anything that needs correcting. We try to keep an eye out and in fact few such mages are ever shown. Still, some can escape and f they do reporting them will help minimize untoward feelings.

I'll keep this in mind for any new formattng we do.

Asher

Thanks Asher, the thread was 'Gymnosist and Tourist'.

Ben Rubinstein said:

Thanks Asher, the thread was 'Gymnosist and Tourist'.

Click to expand...

Ben,

Sorry, I cant find either of them. Do you have the links?

Asher

Hi,

It's the current top thread in the 'human form as art' section.

Ben Rubinstein said:

Hi,

It's the current top thread in the 'human form as art' section.

Click to expand...

Hi Ben,

Isn't the designation, "human form as art" sufficient to let folk know that there will be nudity? Or is it that there's something about this particular picture which happens to contain a human figure which is surprising, given the category?

Or, is it possible that "figure" does not contain the meaning, "nude"?

Asher

Hi Asher,

I clicked on it by mistake not realising what subsection it was in (clicked from the main page) hence my question about whether you would consider that the prefix NSFW be a requirement. Perhaps the section can be labled such if not?

Ben Rubinstein said:

Hi Asher,

I clicked on it by mistake not realising what subsection it was in (clicked from the main page) hence my question about whether you would consider that the prefix NSFW be a requirement. Perhaps the section can be labled such if not?

Click to expand...

What about glamor? Would that be the same? Again, would we expect NSFWP if a blouse has a low neckline or a black sweater shows just a hint of nipples and so forth. Where is the definition that should guide us. A naked person is clearly NSFWP as that has major consequences in a work environment.

However, how do we cover everything that might offend someone? We wouldn't want to call all Glamor or Figure photography NSFW in general. Surely it's the job of the person who only wants to eat vegetarian to check the menu. However, I'm open to new ideas on how to do forwarn folk more effectively.

Asher

Well, when I really don't like an image for whatever reason, I just click the back button…

Hi,

If that subforum is more than just nudity then it would not of course need any general warning, however in that case I believe it strengthens my case that a thread such as the aforementioned with full frontal nudity should carry the appropriate warning especially if it is in a forum which does not necessarily contain nudity as you have suggested.

It should actually be rather easy to define what level of imagery would require the title, the title itself is a perfect indication, anything that would not be considered prudent for viewing in a typical work enviroment in the US or UK (Europe of course is far more liberal about such things) should bear the title. I know on another forum I frequent that it does include many glamour type shots which indeed would be considered to foster a 'hostile work enviroment' or whatever the politically correct catchphrase is these days.

This isn't a matter of prude or taste or whatever, it's an easily drawn line which can save some uncomfortable experiences in the workplace or indeed at home, all it needs is the title and heck we all know it will drive more traffic to the thread anyway

Hi Ben,
I love those politically correct catchphrases...
Sometimes it takes me 1/2 an hour to translate it in my non politically correct English...

'hostile work enviroment'

Click to expand...

When I think of that, I imagine people with machine guns keeping the entry of my office, That's what "hostile" means to me...

You been watching to many films Sandrine?

Ben Rubinstein said:

You been watching to many films Sandrine?

Click to expand...

No, no, they're really after me, you know

mmm.

I have a lot of sympathy with Ben here. I opened G&T )) without any idea of what it contained. From the latest posts page I don't notice what subsection a picture is in. This was just another of Maris' pictures that I usually find interesting. Funny thing is, after the double take, I found the picture was far less 'questionable' than many of the more clothed 'glamour' pictures that get posted and actually raised some interesting questions to me at least. That was why I respnded - having had some thoughts it seemed dishonest not to share them.

However, I think an NSFW tag would have been wise in this case at least - and not to drive traffic.

Mike

Sandrine

Your english may be non-pc because you are an open minded french lady

and just because your paranoid doesn't mean their not out to get you!

Mike

and just because your paranoid doesn't mean their not out to get you!

Click to expand...

They're after me because I'm not talking PC...

As for the image it's where the intent is meaningful for me...
At first - but I speak only for myself - Maris image doesn't require NSFW because it's just naked people... like if you were in a naturist beach, if you're 14 years old... you stare at people, but it last 1/2 an hour.

But if you show Pam's (or Traci Lords or whoever...)on her 4 legs with a tiny winy bikini, making a pout at you, then it's overtly sexual or flirty and then even though she's still have more fabric on her ...back, it's a different intent and that would require a NSFW.

But anyway in both cases it may be not just for you but for the people around you that spy on your computer behind your back

As for the image it's where the intent is meaningful for me...

Sandrine Bascouert said:

Maris image doesn't require NSFW because it's just naked people... like if you were in a naturist beach, if you're 14 years old... you stare at people, but it last 1/2 an hour.

Click to expand...

Sandrine,

When I first visited Nigeria decades ago, I was taken by the vision of so many naked breasts. However, after a while, there was no point in staring. It was just like seeing noses or eyes. We just get used to it!

Sandrine Bascouert said:

But if you show Pam's (or Traci Lords or whoever...)on her 4 legs with a tiny winy bikini, making a pout at you, then it's overtly sexual or flirty and then even though she's still have more fabric on her ...back, it's a different intent and that would require a NSFW.

Click to expand...

This would seem sensible, but I think Ben and others might be wanting NSFW to be used to prevent themselves being embarrassed by frontal nudity. The concern is not actually the workplace, but one's home with children around where cultural standards would not expect nor allow such images.

Asher

This would seem sensible, but I think Ben and others might be wanting NSFW to be used to prevent themselves being embarrassed by frontal nudity. The concern is not actually the workplace, but one's home with children around where cultural standards would not expect nor allow such images.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't really know about other's standards - We all live in our own universe, assuming that's the common way... And yes, the children always spy behind your back....
Makes sense...