How do we address Nudity in titles to give folk a warning?

[Asher Kelman]

I have added a prefix, "Nude:" to our list of prefixes that we can choose. Should we also have Nude: critique requested etc? It would be good to know what folks needs are. It just occurred to one member today that a warning would be helpful so a surprise didn't occur if someone had OPF on their work computer.

So the prefix I have made is there for now. We're open to other suggestions. Obviously if someone is offended by glamor they themselves should not go to that section. However, it might be nice to have warning that glamor is not just limited a young woman in a fine dress with great makeup!

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I have added a prefix, "Nude:" to our list of prefixes that we can choose. Should we also have Nude: critique requested etc? It would be good to know what folks needs are. It just occurred to one member today that a warning would be helpful so a surprise didn't occur if someone had OPF on their work computer.

So the prefix I have made is there for now. We're open to other suggestions. Obviously if someone is offended by glamor they themselves should not go to that section. However, it might be nice to have warning that glamor is not just limited a young woman in a fine dress with great makeup!

Ha, I just raised a question in the thread that you are probably referring to, before reading this.

I think a "Nude:" prefix is enough. Just sharing a nude image on OPF doesn't make much sense to me, there are other sites for that, I presume. So posting an image of nude people is as open to critique/suggestions as any other image.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

I think a "Nude:" prefix is enough. Just sharing a nude image on OPF doesn't make much sense to me, there are other sites for that, I presume. So posting an image of nude people is as open to critique/suggestions as any other image.

Bart,

Nude as the prefix should suffice, after all, we are unlikely to have "Breaking News - Nude: woman poses with no clothes!" or "Nude - Sharing only", LOL, that could be misconstrued!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Nude: Sharing Only! Laughing here!

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I have added a prefix, "Nude:" to our list of prefixes that we can choose. Should we also have Nude: critique requested etc? It would be good to know what folks needs are. It just occurred to one member today that a warning would be helpful so a surprise didn't occur if someone had OPF on their work computer.

Probably not a bad idea, and I'm sure most people will have a fairly good idea how to apply it, and how to interpret it.

And those who are unsure can always take a look at the work and decide whether they want to look at it.

Still, of course, there is the dilemma as to just what needs to be visible (or perhaps uncovers even though not viable) for the work to properly qualify as "nude".

It's fascinating to look at some statutes in the regard! Legislators struggle mightily with the conundrum, not usually with results of which we can be proud. One statute circumnavigates the need to speak of the areola (doing so itself being presumably sinful) by having recourse to the notion of "differential pigmentation".

Best regards,

Doug

I'm at this moment nude from the neck up. I might be nude elsewhere, but I can't tell, since I have my pajamas on.

 

[nicolas claris]

So posting an image of nude people is as open to critique/suggestions as any other image.t

But yes of course !
Imo we don't even need that "nude" category, otherwise, why not 'kids', 'dogs', 'boys', 'girls', 'animals' or even 'cars'!

LoL! are we so naive? do we need warning before every door?

I feel tired with all these categories!

Didn't I/we was born naked?

 

[Asher Kelman]

But yes of course !
Imo we don't even need that "nude" category, otherwise, why not 'kids', 'dogs', 'boys', 'girls', 'animals' or even 'cars'!

LoL! are we so naive? do we need warning before every door?

I feel tired with all these categories!

Didn't I/we was born naked?

Nicolas,

The subject came up in a PM to me about work place issue in the USA. If one has such a picture open in an office environment at work and another person sees it, they can claim "sexual harassment". The picture, it's imagined, is displayed so as to send an aggressive and unwanted sexual message to the other workers. This might then result in a claim of both harassment and an hostile work environment. Probably in europe, especially France, such ideas are unthinkable and sill, but here it's big business for lawyers. There are seminars that law firms give to company workers and management and expert witnesses, a whole industry ready to pounce on the poor employer who's allow such happenings.

In addition, some folk here might not want to see a naked person but would be happy to see glamor. So the simple word, "Nude" does serve these purposes.

If you are at work in the USA, don't open such a thread! Either you'll get a promotion of fired! Don't take the risk, LOL!

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

Asher
this is not serious.

1. In a normal work environment, one is not supposed to surf the web even OPF! unless it it one's job so there could not be any complain.

2. If still one is surfing OPF while at work (despite above §) and fails into a 'nude' picture post, one could immediately hit the back key!

3. Are there any 'nude' warning signals in museums? I really don't think so!

Better fight against hypocrisy instead of being powered by it.

Nicolas,

The subject came up in a PM to me about work place issue in the USA. If one has such a picture open in an office environment at work and another person sees it, they can claim "sexual harassment". The picture, it's imagined, is displayed so as to send an aggressive and unwanted sexual message to the other workers. This might then result in a claim of both harassment and an hostile work environment. Probably in europe, especially France, such ideas are unthinkable and sill, but here it's big business for lawyers. There are seminars that law firms give to company workers and management and expert witnesses, a whole industry ready to pounce on the poor employer who's allow such happenings.

In addition, some folk here might not want to see a naked person but would be happy to see glamor. So the simple word, "Nude" does serve these purposes.

If you are at work in the USA, don't open such a thread! Either you'll get a promotion of fired! Don't take the risk, LOL!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher
this is not serious.

1. In a normal work environment, one is not supposed to surf the web even OPF! unless it it one's job so there could not be any complain.

Nicolas,

But to some folk apparently is! In some places, people can surf the web during their personal time in coffee and lunch breaks and they do! I'm told term in vogue and that some some use is NSFW, ("Not Safe For Work), but I thought one word, "Nude" serves both purposes.

The prestigious Ars Technica has a serious article on the subject of personal web surfing where they even claim it increases work productivity in some circumstances!

"Workers are more productive when they are able to occasionally do non-work stuff online, researchers at the University of Melbourne have found. Dr. Brent Coker studied the habits of 300 workers and found that the large majority engaged in what he calls "Workplace Internet Leisure Browsing" (WILB)—surfing the Internet for personal reasons. But despite the common perception that such a behavior is a drain on employers, Coker says that these employees are able to focus better when performing tasks for work.

In his report, Coker said that 70 percent of workers engage in WILB, the most popular of which involved looking for information about products, reading news, playing games, and watching YouTube videos. "People need to zone out for a bit to get back their concentration," he said in a statement. "Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days work, and as a result, increased productivity"

Now in a small office, such activity would likely be noticed, so it's easy to regulate, however, according to all I've read, it's very common and OPF is often accessed while readers are at work. That's the way it is!

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

Nicolas,

But to some folk apparently is! In some places, people can surf the web during their personal time in coffee and lunch breaks and they do! I'm told term in vogue and that some some use is NSFW, ("Not Safe For Work), but I thought one word, "Nude" serves both purposes.

Asher

Then they can follow
2. If still one is surfing OPF while at work (despite above §) and fails into a 'nude' picture post, one could immediately hit the back key!

Better fight against hypocrisy instead of being powered/drived by it.

OPF is not only American…

 

[Asher Kelman]

Then they can follow
2. If still one is surfing OPF while at work (despite above §) and fails into a 'nude' picture post, one could immediately hit the back key!

Better fight against hypocrisy instead of being powered/drived by it.

OPF is not only American…

So we should not then warn folk? That report was from Australia not the USA! Bart also brought up the question of warning folk. He's European. So lets get different views. If people don't want that prefix, we can just as easily remove it! I only provided it in response to several statements of concern. To me, I have no personal issue, but OPF is a joint effort made by the community. We need a consensus.

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

We need a consensus.

Yes but leaders too, if we have to make everyone happy, it's gonna be quite flat around there!

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart also brought up the question of warning folk. He's European.

True, but I'm acting in my moderator role for OPF worldwide on this subject. Besides, Europe is a pretty diverse cultural area. As a European, I'm well aware that there are different views around the globe, including ones I personally may find hypocritical. But my personal view is not that relevant, unless asked for.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[nicolas claris]

But my personal view is not that relevant, unless asked for.

Yes it is Bart! and I ask for…

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes it is Bart! and I ask for…

Personally I don't mind well styled nudes, with good lighting and composition, quality photography. I do mind cheap sleazy nudes, just for the sake of being nude for effect or for the money (exploitation).

I also think there is a lot of hypocrisy, especially from some of the leading nations in the production of sleazy porn, but also from countries/individuals who claim to follow a superior system of beliefs (self proclaimed moral superiority).

But since I'm a nice guy, I don't mind a gentle warning for tender souls (and I don't say that in a demeaning manner). It's just that I don't want to force my beliefs onto others, but a discussion is always possible, no dogmas here. Dogmas stifle progress.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[nicolas claris]

It's just that I don't want to force my beliefs onto others, but a discussion is always possible, no dogmas here. Dogmas stifle progress.

Bart I do agree and respect your thoughts, but

in this thread should we put a warning "Kids photos" because one could be accused to look at young children (and girls in this case!)?

I am far from "make it all free" without control, but sometimes, to me, too much is really too much…
One has to keep responsible for oneself!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Bart I do agree and respect your thoughts, but

in this thread should we put a warning "Kids photos" because one could be accused to look at young children (and girls in this case!)?

I am far from "make it all free" without control, but sometimes, to me, too much is really too much…
One has to keep responsible for oneself!

Nicolas,

The kids pictures you refer to are not the sort that would raise eyebrows of any law enforcement officers anywhere I know. If we thought they were in any way inappropriate, they'd simply not be here. you yourself would remove them. We rely on that.

Of course someone could have a hissy-fit seeing pictures of a bullfight or an elephant in a small zoo enclosure or a woman in a total body covering in 110 degrees heat. We cannot deal with everything. However, not many countries have the more open attitude to nudity as we know exists in many European Countries. I think we should sit on this for a while. Maybe someone will come up with a better name/warning. NFWP is brief and sufficient for those who would want the warning. However, what we have is straightforward.

Lets see what other moderators say. You know I consider your opinion as of high value, even though we bang heads. But that's what good friends are for.

I personally don't want trashy pictures. The warning is not going to help us there!

Asher

 

[Mike Bailey]

The obviously - is there such a thing - flagrant abuse of the spirit of freedom of expression aside, well-meaning warnings may be possibly a first step toward censorship. Allowing whatever image to be posted, but then putting a label on it gets into all the murky problems groups and governments around the world have experienced for ages regarding art, censorship and freedom of expression, doesn't it?

Mike

_________________
http://bluerockphotography.com

 

[Asher Kelman]

The obviously - is there such a thing - flagrant abuse of the spirit of freedom of expression aside, well-meaning warnings may be possibly a first step toward censorship. Allowing whatever image to be posted, but then putting a label on it gets into all the murky problems groups and governments around the world have experienced for ages regarding art, censorship and freedom of expression, doesn't it?

Mike

_________________
http://bluerockphotography.com

So Mike,

Are you against having a warning label? Do you believe we should not do it?

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

I think there is a HUGE difference between a label ("warning" is perhaps overstating it) and suppression.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

....Lets see what other moderators say.

Asher,

Considering the fact there already is a prefix for nude, my opinion is perhaps no longer needed. Nevertheless, I'll answer since you've asked .

I agree with Nicolas and I do not see the need to generate a prefix for nude. As Nicolas said, where then do we draw the line? If I were to post a picture of a nude and there was no prefix available, my own common sense would dictate that I would warn the lookers in the title of my post. If I hadn't been a person who pays attention to these kind of details, I would also not have taken my time to browse for a prefix called nude for my post, if you get what I mean. In such situations, which may still occur for other reasons than nudity, we have to rely on our moderators to appropriately re-title and/or move the thread, as you yourself have pointed out. Mind you, this is a totally subjective evaluation by the moderator in question and we should not have the illusion of thus complying with the legal or statutory requirements of any country.

Having said this, I also don't mind having a prefix for nude, now that it is there. It doesn't hurt anybody and it can be a gentle reminder for newbies when they take a look at the list of prefixes. Now I am opting for a compromise between the idealism of Nicolas' opinion and Bart's pragmatism:

Personally I don't mind well styled nudes, with good lighting and composition, quality photography. I do mind cheap sleazy nudes, just for the sake of being nude for effect or for the money (exploitation).

I also think there is a lot of hypocrisy, especially from some of the leading nations in the production of sleazy porn, but also from countries/individuals who claim to follow a superior system of beliefs (self proclaimed moral superiority).

But since I'm a nice guy, I don't mind a gentle warning for tender souls (and I don't say that in a demeaning manner). It's just that I don't want to force my beliefs onto others, but a discussion is always possible, no dogmas here. Dogmas stifle progress.

Cheers,
Bart

Unsurprisingly, I agree with Bart on all counts.

The obviously - is there such a thing - flagrant abuse of the spirit of freedom of expression aside, well-meaning warnings may be possibly a first step toward censorship. Allowing whatever image to be posted, but then putting a label on it gets into all the murky problems groups and governments around the world have experienced for ages regarding art, censorship and freedom of expression, doesn't it?

Interesting point Mike and I partially agree with you. I think the crux is who creates a label and as to what purpose. It is not fair to say that a label is a first step towards censorship or big brother practices by the powers that may be. But in this information age, I think that we already live in a 1984-like society whether we label something or not. Everything we do or say is already being tracked, categorized, labeled, assessed and stored in some database somewhere.

And finally, back to Nicolas:

..I am far from "make it all free" without control, but sometimes, to me, too much is really too much…
One has to keep responsible for oneself!

Enough said

Cheers,

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,

Considering the fact there already is a prefix for nude, my opinion is perhaps no longer needed. Nevertheless, I'll answer since you've asked .

Cem,

Your ideas are always needed and welcome. I have stated that I made the prefix, "Nude" as a simple immediate solution to a practical issue for two reasons: first work place use of sites such as OPF, (a recognized habit in 20% of the workplace) and secondly, there are folk who would appreciate having a consistent notice of what to expect so they can avoid being confronted with something they find an-wanted embarrassment. There's a third value, and that is for young folk at the ages of 14-18 who might be able to avoid such threads. But then the same prefix works in the opposite direction too so the benefit although questionable, might helps OPF, legally, as far as taking some precautions in protecting teenagers.

So you can see that I do not find the current prefix solution perfect by any means. Still, it does at least serve the first two original functions. So, whenever there's a naked human subject, that prefix should be used and I personally will try to add that to posts, if there's continued consensus to do so.

Still, we do not, as yet, have a real solution. Nicolas is correct that we should be relying on the personal responsibility of those who make titles or those who read titles! However, against that is the knowledge that people access OPF in public places and if we can help prevent others being offended with little effort on our part and without censorship, then it's an agreeable workaround to an intractable problem.

Ideally we should all be open-minded.

However, each of us is from a different culture with a different set of rulers, for measurement of values, in their back pockets, for each of different occasions, to suit their own values! We can be open but yet still make allowances for these obvious sensitivities. The lines we draw are as follows:

All images are allowed except those which denigrate, defame, are plagiarized, imply child pornography or mobilize hatred. Nudity is not reason for any restrictions but trashy images we do not welcome! OPF looks for your best pictures and we trust you.

I am not more eloquent or capable in expressing my point of view or able to cover all circumstances. Nevertheless, please be assured that the prefix, "Nude" is meant to protect the right to free expression of the photographer as well as the respect for those who might be offended.

This is our arrangement for now until someone comes up with a wiser solution to everyone's needs and values. I admit it's clumsy, but so are we.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, if I might: Why assume it is a question of offense? or even prudery? There are reasons I would want to know the image is a nude before opening. Offended? Prude? Hardly. I've posed as a nude model (within the past year, I might add). We need to rethink the reasons why someone might want to be "warned."

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, if I might: Why assume it is a question of offense? or even prudery? There are reasons I would want to know the image is a nude before opening. Offended? Prude? Hardly. I've posed as a nude model (within the past year, I might add). We need to rethink the reasons why someone might want to be "warned."

Rachel,

Why do I have to rethink the reasons. We have several. If there are more, it doesn't alter the issue, unless you want a prefix as a guide to finding such threads. That's fine too!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Oh, Asher, sorry: I was referring to other responses. I understand the tendency to dismiss it as hypocrisy -- after all, the US is VERY conflicted and inconsistent in attitudes toward nudity -- it prompted me to point out there might be other reasons it would be practical.

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

NO OPF then!

If I am at work looking at a nude - even art nude - and my assistant comes in she can sue me for what is called Hostile Work Enviornment. You also have a responsbility to women who might be treated improperly.

I suggest that you - out of respect for the subjects - have nude subjects in an opt out and sign in fashion to protect the models and the employers in the USA.

Soapbox Warning: Yes, in Europe you might have more freedoms. But here is a thought - Nude women might need protection from the general sleeze bag people on the internet too.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

If I am at work looking at a nude - even art nude - and my assistant comes in she can sue me for what is called Hostile Work Enviornment. You also have a responsbility to women who might be treated improperly.

I suggest that you - out of respect for the subjects - have nude subjects in an opt out and sign in fashion to protect the models and the employers in the USA.

Soapbox Warning: Yes, in Europe you might have more freedoms. But here is a thought - Nude women might need protection from the general sleeze bag people on the internet too.

Hi Kathy,

With all due respect, neither Nicolas nor I are against using a warning in the title of the image by the original poster, by all means please do that. What we are against is the institutionalizing of this by introducing a prefix whereas it is the opriginal poster who is the culprit. As I wrote, any sensible person will self label nudity as such when posting on an open forum even if there are no prefixes. So we actually are dealing with the fallacy of humans here, and it cannot be fought against with more and more rules and regulations. Moderating is the way to go forward IMO.

Re. the work environment, if you are working in an environment as strict as the one you mention (i.e. the USA), then you shouldn't be visiting OPF at work, as Nicolas wrote earlier. If you do, then accept the consequences that it is an open environment and that you can accidentally run into some image which might be offending to somebody. Again, it all comes down to the responsibility of the individuals. We cannot take measures to cover our bases against each and every individual's situation around the world. If we would try, then the OPF as I know it would cease to exist.

Cheers,

 

[Daniel Buck]

Asher
this is not serious.

1. In a normal work environment, one is not supposed to surf the web even OPF! unless it it one's job so there could not be any complain.

2. If still one is surfing OPF while at work (despite above §) and fails into a 'nude' picture post, one could immediately hit the back key!

3. Are there any 'nude' warning signals in museums? I really don't think so!

Better fight against hypocrisy instead of being powered by it.

But yes of course !
Imo we don't even need that "nude" category, otherwise, why not 'kids', 'dogs', 'boys', 'girls', 'animals' or even 'cars'!

LoL! are we so naive? do we need warning before every door?

I feel tired with all these categories!

Didn't I/we was born naked?

Hm... well let me enlighten you a bit on my reasoning for suggesting the "NUDE" catagory, and answer a few of your questions since I was probably the one who sparked this discussion. My suggestion was not for a category, but for posters of their own initiative to add "NUDE" or "NSFW" to the subject of their postings, it's quite common and usually self-enforced on most websites that I visit. My intitial suggestion was atually "NSFW", which to most people includes Nudity, blood, violence and vulgarity.

Yes, I have the opportunities/privileges to view the internet at work, we don't have alot of restrictions. I also have a liter bottle of scotch sitting on my desk 1/2 drank right next to an empty liter, something else probably not common on most people's desks at work. But that doesn't mean that I want to display nudity, vulgarity, or other things while on-line while I am at work. The phrase "use it, don't abuse it" comes to mind.

But it's not just at work for which I suggested the "NUDE" category, the NSFW tag implies that if it's not in decency to display publicly at work, you may not want to display it publicly in other areas either, using "what you would show at work" as the measuring stick. In general, if I'm surfing the web for photography to look at and admire (which I do often), I want to know if something contains nudity, vulgarity, or anything else that could be offensive to OTHER people who may see my monitor while passing by. In America we call that common decency and respect for others. Be it at work if I have to wait for the computers to calculate or decide to eat lunch/supper in, be it sitting in the airport waiting for my flight, be it at a friend's house with 2 kids and a wife, or what have you. I personally have no aversion to nudity or some kinds of vulgarity/blood. I also don't particularly care if I smell of a little body odor, but I bathe and keep clean so not to offend others. So it is with nudity and vulgarity. If I'm going to post either, I make sure to give warning to those who may not wish to see can pass it by.

Do we need categories and notifications for everything? I think not. Infact, I usually like to keep catagories and notifications down to the basics, the least complicated. You yourself have categories labeled in your signature, work on your website is not for critique, work you post on the forum is ok to critique. To me, that seems more silly than labeling things as Nude or Vulgar. But any categories that could potentially offend a portion of it's viewers (sometimes offend is not the right word) I think should at the least be marked with a notification. Maybe yall in France don't care either way about keeping nudity/vulgarity/porn from those who wish not to see it or keeping it from being seen by those who elders deem to young to see it. But as for me and mine, I do care. I'll see you your museum comment, and raise you a beach comment. Do not alot nude beaches have a sign declaring them "Nude"? The one's I've heard of, do.

I'm not sure where you are getting this "fight against hypocrisy" stuff, so I'll leave that alone. All that was suggested was a simple "NUDE" tag for threads that contain nudity, something that is fairly common (and usually self-policed) on most other forums that I've visited, where people have the decency to at least warn others when there is going to be nudity, blood, or other things that may perhaps be offensive to others.

Yes like you, I too was born nude and covered in blood, thanks for the reminder of the obvious. But I don't present myself in public that way very often. If you choose to do so in public, that's fine. Just give me a little warning before you do so, that's all I ask. ;-)

 

[Mike Bailey]

It would seem that postings in the Glamor or Human Form As Art should be adequate warning to forum readers rather than adding a label to the actual posting. That way the person posting has the choice of location without having a prefix tacked onto (edited) the subject line. If it's posted in the wrong location, then hasn't it already been agreed by participation in this forum that the moderator has the right to move it to the correct location?

I wasn't saying adding the prefix is censorship, but that it is very easy to get in the vicinity of the thought processes that lead to censorship and gradual acclimation to that frame of mind can happen. Then... it's the old story of being boiled alive without even knowing that it's happening.

Mike

______________________
bluerockphotography.com

 

[Asher Kelman]

It would seem that postings in the Glamor or Human Form As Art should be adequate warning to forum readers rather than adding a label to the actual posting. That way the person posting has the choice of location without having a prefix tacked onto (edited) the subject line. If it's posted in the wrong location, then hasn't it already been agreed by participation in this forum that the moderator has the right to move it to the correct location?

I wasn't saying adding the prefix is censorship, but that it is very easy to get in the vicinity of the thought processes that lead to censorship and gradual acclimation to that frame of mind can happen. Then... it's the old story of being boiled alive without even knowing that it's happening.

Mike,

I can only give you my word that we won't have any creeping censorship. Even if I would slip, there are plenty of friends here who would kindly correct me and get me back on track. We're a small community and that's how OPF works.

I have a strong sense of freedom of expression and we have worked as a community to evolve a culture of respect, nurturing and openness. We'll protect that. Yes, we might make mistakes, and this particular way might not be the bet way, but we can change things as long as the principals count not the rules. We try to work by consensus and as now, I personally take a great deal of effort to understand people's points of view. We don't have cures, only bandaids because we are all imperfect. So we help each other, that's all we can do.

The best way to deal with issues like this is to improve how we photograph and do our best to show each other the photographs that help us earn a living and hold up a lantern to out lives, spread some joy, and even make some impact on what we might choose to do with our resources in the future.

Asher