Discussion of Inappropriate Content

[Acherontia]

And people have already agreed that "erotica" like posts be left out of the RPs and taken to private chats if the people wish to have them happen.

I don't really think anybody's contesting that point anymore from what I've seen.
(Above part directed to Ache and the people still bringing up the "erotica" RP scenes.)

Yeah, I'm not trying to argue a point--it was (as mentioned) a response to this:

And I had never explicitly thought about how some of the forums fit into our main goal here. Like the art and RP forums - despite the fact that I just moved them to the Other area, I had really considered them to be pretty central. And yet there's no particular reason for me to assume that they are any more central to "WoW hunter pets" than the Real-Life Pets board is.

which was brought up with the idea of "erotica doesn't belong because it's irrelevant." To reiterate, I was addressing why I thought one made sense while the other didn't--that the art and RP boards sprang forth from WoW related stuff, but are fine for socializing and non-WoW stuff, whereas the erotica has no place. In other words, I don't think the non-WoW boards need to be removed or anything like that just because erotica is "off topic."

Incidentally, I do agree that society is pretty ****ed up when it accepts violence, killing baby things and torture, yet freaks out over sex. However, WoW stands for World of WARcraft, and most of the game's point is conflict and violence. The site was based around WoW. The game has little to no focus on sex (unless you live in Goldshire on an RP realm ), and I think that the site should reflect this and not make WoW-related visitors uncomfortable (or in the case of kids, exposed to innappropriate content).

[Kalliope]

This conversation is sort of derailing into a "sex vs. violence" debate. Despite that being a key theme in regards to determining what is acceptable, it applies less to WoW than one might assume. WoW may have violence at its roots, but there's nothing graphic in the animation of the majority of said violence. Take autoshot, for example - we don't even draw blood. So we're not seeing much actual violence, just like we're not seeing overt sexual themes - at least from the content of the game itself; I'm not talking about player-generated material. This rather makes that entire side conversation moot.

[Cialbi]

And people have already agreed that "erotica" like posts be left out of the RPs and taken to private chats if the people wish to have them happen.

I don't really think anybody's contesting that point anymore from what I've seen.
(Above part directed to Ache and the people still bringing up the "erotica" RP scenes.)

Yeah, I'm not trying to argue a point--it was (as mentioned) a response to this:

And I had never explicitly thought about how some of the forums fit into our main goal here. Like the art and RP forums - despite the fact that I just moved them to the Other area, I had really considered them to be pretty central. And yet there's no particular reason for me to assume that they are any more central to "WoW hunter pets" than the Real-Life Pets board is.

which was brought up with the idea of "erotica doesn't belong because it's irrelevant." To reiterate, I was addressing why I thought one made sense while the other didn't--that the art and RP boards sprang forth from WoW related stuff, but are fine for socializing and non-WoW stuff, whereas the erotica has no place. In other words, I don't think the non-WoW boards need to be removed or anything like that just because erotica is "off topic."

Acherontia, would it be accurate to say that you're simply interpreting erotica as being a broader category than TygerDarkstorm is? From what I'm understanding, you're saying that nudity is erotic, in of itself. Or am I painting with too broad a brush?

[cowmuflage]

I don't think nudity is erotic. I had a talk with Mania last night about this subject and my art and it was good. I'm not takeing my nude art down unless she and she alone says I have too.

[Saturo]

Nudity =/= Erotic. It IS possible to have nudity and still not have it be erotic. It's rare, but definitely not nonexistant.

[cowmuflage]

My model sheets are an example of that.

[Worba]

It's a matter of personal opinion of course - some think they're the same (including myself), others do not, but obviously Mania's opinion is the only one that actually matters, in the end.

[Cialbi]

I was asking Acherontia, since I thought that she and TygerDarkstorm weren't quite on the same page. Hopefully my question will help her better articulate her opinion. After all, it's opinions that Mania is asking for, opinions and their reasoning.

[Bulletdance]

Its tough to say really. I haven't seen all that much on the forum that is explicit save for some linked videos and a few fan arts. Its totally up to Mania what is appropriate and what is not,but even with rules posted it'd be difficult to tell if people are reading them and to monitor the whole site. Its a lot to ask of one person and a few moderators. I would like to see people responsible for posting a clear rating on things that might be considered more adult only visible before the thread is clicked. But most people have been doing this already.

[Moonlost]

Nudity =/= Erotic. It IS possible to have nudity and still not have it be erotic. It's rare, but definitely not nonexistant.

Case in point; one of the most moving and, well, shocking pictures on DA is of a topless woman... Who is not only rather elderly, but is suffering from breast cancer. The pic in question has her rather rather gently showcasing the surgical scars from her treatment. It's nude, but far, far from pornographic in nature.

Likewise, I've also seen pictures of clothed people that I would consider pornographic. It's all a matter of how the subject is handled.

Really, if you're wondering whether or not it's appropriate to post something here that has nudity of some sort, ask this very simple question: "Would the average person be easily able to fap to this?"
If you're unsure or want to play it safe, run it by Mania for the final word.

[Worba]

Case in point; one of the most moving and, well, shocking pictures on DA is of a topless woman... Who is not only rather elderly, but is suffering from breast cancer. The pic in question has her rather rather gently showcasing the surgical scars from her treatment. It's nude, but far, far from pornographic in nature.

Ok, maybe "erotic" is not the best word for this, so I'd recommend applying the indecent exposure test as a simpler approach - would a person (or the closest real world equivalent!) dressed in that fashion be allowed to walk around in public. Not talking about a nudist colony or a nude beach (no quibbling please!), just a citizen walking around the average downtown metropolitan area...

Cherubs are not erotic - but any parent walking around with a naked kid is going to be confronted by the police (and will be hearing from the DSS real soon)...

Cancer patients are not erotic, but nonetheless - not allowed to expose themselves in public.

Etc.

That's pretty much airtight.

[TygerDarkstorm]

I was asking Acherontia, since I thought that she and TygerDarkstorm weren't quite on the same page. Hopefully my question will help her better articulate her opinion. After all, it's opinions that Mania is asking for, opinions and their reasoning.

I was actually more referring how all our arguments are beginning to run in a circle. The same things keep being said over and over at this point.

[Cialbi]

Worba, then explain to me why we can have statues in a museum or public park that are completely naked, but if someone were to walk into the same museum or park completely naked, he/she would get arrested. Are you saying that the police should either put clothing on these famous statues, or that they should stop arresting people for indecent exposure when there are naked statues nearby?
For that matter, take paintings that depict killing and/or torture. Does that mean that someone should be allowed to devour small children in a museum that's displaying the painting Saturn Devouring his Children, or do you think that particular Romantic painting should be taken off display?

My point is that artwork is held to a different standard than people, so saying that something should be unacceptable to depict in artwork just because it's unacceptable for people to do is flawed logic in my opinion.

[TygerDarkstorm]

Worba, then explain to me why we can have statues in a museum or public park that are completely naked, but if someone were to walk into the same museum or park completely naked, he/she would get arrested. Are you saying that the police should either put clothing on these famous statues, or that they should stop arresting people for indecent exposure when there are naked statues nearby?
For that matter, take paintings that depict killing and/or torture. Does that mean that someone should be allowed to devour small children in a museum that's displaying the painting Saturn Devouring his Children, or do you think that particular Romantic painting should be taken off display?

My point is that artwork is held to a different standard than people, so saying that something should be unacceptable to depict in artwork just because it's unacceptable for people to do is flawed logic in my opinion.

This is my exact thoughts just worded far more appropriately than what my brain could muster.

But ultimately I feel our arguments are going in circles and this decision is Mania's to make. Many of us have also said that if you're going to make a post with a nude/semi-nude photo in it, to have it be in a link or non-revealing thumbnail with warnings which makes me a little unsure as to why this debate is still going on.

[Moonlost]

Ok, maybe "erotic" is not the best word for this, so I'd recommend applying the indecent exposure test as a simpler approach - would a person (or the closest real world equivalent!) dressed in that fashion be allowed to walk around in public. Not talking about a nudist colony or a nude beach (no quibbling please!), just a citizen walking around the average downtown metropolitan area...

Cherubs are not erotic - but any parent walking around with a naked kid is going to be confronted by the police (and will be hearing from the DSS real soon)...

Cancer patients are not erotic, but nonetheless - not allowed to expose themselves in public.

Etc.

That's pretty much airtight.

Ah, but then how do we factor in the buxom women walking around in public with excedingly revealing clothing with the clear intent of appearing erotic?
Again, I feel that non erotic content (that is, mature subjects and art that do not have the intention of making somebody sexualy aroused) should be allowed here so long as they have the right tags about them. Especially if it relates to serious matters such as cancer. I know we have PSA's about breast cancer (and other cancer) shoved down our throats, but an image such as the one I described really hammers the point home.
Seriously, if you feel a lump or anything worrying, get checked. I've lost family members and friends to breast cancer. I'd rather be embarassed at a doctors than dead.

On the subject of violence... since when did people not kick up a stink over violence as well? Need I link the violence-in-games-make-children-into-budding-psychopaths "studies"?
On the subject of Sex in video games? Yeah, I'll concede that we're still treating it as amazingly taboo when it shouldn't be. But that's a different matter. And I leave that debate up to the people who could word it much, much better than I. Here and Here.

[Worba]

Worba, then explain to me why we can have statues in a museum or public park that are completely naked, but if someone were to walk into the same museum or park completely naked, he/she would get arrested. Are you saying that the police should either put clothing on these famous statues, or that they should stop arresting people for indecent exposure when there are naked statues nearby?
For that matter, take paintings that depict killing and/or torture. Does that mean that someone should be allowed to devour small children in a museum that's displaying the painting Saturn Devouring his Children, or do you think that particular Romantic painting should be taken off display?

My point is that artwork is held to a different standard than people, so saying that something should be unacceptable to depict in artwork just because it's unacceptable for people to do is flawed logic in my opinion.

There is, has been and always will be an ongoing debate about what art is okay and for whom, since you can justify anything as art, including pornography, since photography (and cinematography, etc) is itself an art medium, and thus museums don't always work as the best common-ground example.

It's one thing to say that drawn art is different because it allows for things like artful arrangement of hair / tree branches / blurring / etc, which is a valid point - quite another to say that because nudity appears in museums ipso facto the sky's the limit - as long as it's a drawing.

Do they put the Saturn painting in the family section? No. And the web equivalent (to me) is putting it behind a link. Still available for anyone who wants to see it.

Sure there are always some people who would like to make everything up to Mapplethorpe available to everyone (including grade-schoolers) on grounds that it is art (and I'm not saying this applies to you personally - I don't know your tastes), but they are the exception.

[Worba]

Ah, but then how do we factor in the buxom women walking around in public with excedingly revealing clothing with the clear intent of appearing erotic?

There are always people who push the envelope, and every "law" has its gray area - no matter where you draw the line. That's where Officer Mania comes in.

[Cialbi]

Worba, my point was admittedly to poke your 'airtight' proposal full of holes, because it's terribly restrictive otherwise if you don't make reasonable exceptions. By those rules, you'd wind up with a lot of art being deemed inappropriate when I would seriously doubt there would be objections. Hair concealing naked breasts? Nope, still indecent exposure. Cropping the 'naughty bits' out of view, but making it clear that they aren't actually covered? Hide behind a brick wall while stark naked all you like, it's still indecent exposure. Heck, some of the artwork in WoW itself would fail the indecent exposure test; dryads would be arrested for indecent exposure if pasties weren't enough under local law, and harpies would be in trouble no matter what. I'm not even sure if those demonic, 6-armed demons have enough of their ass covered, come to think of it, unless a string over your ass counts.

[Mania]

You people and your interesting discussions! But while it's fascinating, I think we've covered the thoughts I wanted to draw out in terms of the forums pretty well. I'm going to lock this thread for now although I'll re-open it if it seems like we need to.

Thank you everyone! I really appreciate the thorough and polite conversation on this!