There is something that irks me in the rules as I don't understand exactly what they mean .....
Photos must not "show a penis or a vagina".
Penis, obvious, no worries.
The vagina is internal, hidden behind fleshy lobes. Unless you intend a gynocological shot (how do you light those with my two 500W halogens on a stand?) you aren't going to see it.
Quite obviously it isn't the actual vagina that they mean.
but the question remains ..... what do they mean?
Would a photo with a pubic mound be disqualified, maybe if it showed hair? If that ok as long as nothing between the legs showed?
There are some beautiful shots out there, especially b&w, that would show hair (oh, i am trying to be so tactful here it's not funny) and not be seen by people in general as offensive (I could post an example but won't as I do not know if it is allowed).
Technically you could do an open leg shot and it not be disqualified, which would obviously (to me) be totally inappropriate for here as the "vagina" would not actually be seen. Obviously, and rightly, that is not the intention of the rule.
I am guessing that no penis - no mound area, but this is a guess.
Maybe a rewording of the rules to clarify?
For the record, I don't have a photo in mind here and am not against the rule at all as it fits the site well. I just want to know where the line is drawn in case I ever have one in the future.
in some counties is showing woman face also not appropriate. I personally think, if there is only penis or this feminine thing and they are not too much together, you can put it on and wait what others will say (probably they do not say too much)
There is another rule that must be obeyed. See Section 4.2 of the Terms and Conditions of the DPC User's Agreement.
"4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity, (ii) is libelous, defamatory or slanderous, (iii) condones, promotes, contains or links to warez, cracks, hacks or similar utilities or programs, (iv) contains explicitly sexual content, (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise, (vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages or depicts the use of drugs, alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste." emphasis mine
I think your idea of a photo showing a pubic mound with hair would probably be allowed if tastefully done. But I also think it would be approaching the limits of the rule. As in all aplications of this kind of rules, what might be "approaching the limits" in your mind or my mind will undoubtedly be "crossing the line" in the minds of others. If you want to play it safe, don't get too close to the line. If you want to probe into the gray area, don't be upset if your photo gets DQ'ed.
As in all aplications of this kind of rules, what might be "approaching the limits" in your mind or my mind will undoubtedly be "crossing the line" in the minds of others. If you want to play it safe, don't get too close to the line.
Yup, I agree.
I guess I am just trying to find where the line is a little better as quite obviously what the rules actually state is NOT the actual case.
However, the other section you quote would cover than, and does help.
I think they just need to replace th term vagina with something that actually makes sense as then it will help remove any ambiguity.
"Photographs may not, however, show a penis or a vagina or any acts of sex"
Man, am I glad I read this thread. All along I thought it was saying "penis or vagina IN any acts of sex" which to me meant that the penis and the vagina were fine, just as long as they weren't depicted in a sex act. This thread made me go back and read that again, and probobly saved me the embarrassement of exposing myself to everyone here at DPC!
the rule about "(viii) encourages or depicts the use of drugs, alcohol or cigarettes" Is this recent, is it very strict in interpretation, or is it just not enforced?
I think it's easy to understand why a picture of an ashtray full of cigarette butts, or a picture featuring gin & tonic does not meet the criteria because neither is encouraging, nor depicting the use... but there has been a recent submission of a photograph that does depict use.
I'm curious because I was thinking of an upcoming challenge that I had given thought to including a bottle of champagne. I think that would be okay given past entries. However after spotting a picture that clearly depicted the use of alcohol I am no longer certain that the rule is not being ignored completely in which case my interpretation of "use of" may not be correct.
In which forum is it the most proper to ask for a formal definition?
EddyG won a ribbon with his 'Champagne for Two' shot. I think this rule was put in here to ensure drugs, alcohol and cigarettes weren't used in an inappropriate way. Many people have used shots of alcohol, smoking etc. for challenges and won ribbons, placed highly! My new year's resolution shot was about smoking! I'm sure it would be fine to include a bottle of champagne!
Lee
PS. I ignored the 'adults only please' statement on the post, grow up, I'm pretty sure I can handle the word penis or vagina. Just because I'm not 18 doesn't mean I don't understand the human body.
Not to get too technical here, but yeah I think the word they mean when they're referring to 'vagina' is actually 'vulva'. If you're going to be prudish, you might as well be anal. Of course, being anal might confuse things a bit and go against the whole spirit of being prudish. Yet, anal does tend to exclude the aformentioned naughty bits.
... the rule about "(viii) encourages or depicts the use of drugs, alcohol or cigarettes" Is this recent, is it very strict in interpretation, or is it just not enforced?
... I am no longer certain that the rule is not being ignored completely in which case my interpretation of "use of" may not be correct.
In which forum is it the most proper to ask for a formal definition?
i think i barely matters what the formal definition is - spiders were a popular subject in the INSECTS challenge, as was chess in the SPORTS challenge -- it appears that formal definitions have been a secondary (at best) consideration for some time :(
I consider myself a naturist. I don't have problems going to naturist resorts or nudist beaches. I respect the position of most people on this site, thus "protecting" small children that participate here, but I view the WHOLE human body as a work of art itself. I don´t see why showing a penis (in a non sexual perspective) is "bad taste". If that was the case, many of the works of art of ancient Greece and Renaissance period would have to be banned.... Makes me wonder..... I think that if we encourage a healthier (as oppose to morbose) view towards the human body, we're helping to destroy a long sustained and pointless taboo.
I admire the works of many brave photographes like Spencer Tunick, and many others who do show the human body as it is.
