A couple years ago there were two photos DQ'd and removed from DPChallenge. I believe they were removed for violating the TOS (specifically item 4.2.iv - "contains explicitly sexual content"). It was a spoof done by Leroy (fotomann_forever) and Linda (ShutterPug).
This entry from the Lingerie challenge is very similar in nature to the one by Linda that was removed from this site.
A couple years ago there were two photos DQ'd and removed from DPChallenge. I believe they were removed for violating the TOS (specifically item 4.2.iv - "contains explicitly sexual content"). It was a spoof done by Leroy (fotomann_forever) and Linda (ShutterPug).
This entry from the Lingerie challenge is very similar in nature to the one by Linda that was removed from this site.
Where's the line?
I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.
I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.
It's not the amount of clothing, it's the implied action taking place. In the photo Linda submitted she actually had MORE clothing on than in this photo.
I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.
It's not the amount of clothing, it's the implied action taking place. In the photo Linda submitted she actually had MORE clothing on than in this photo.
I guess I don't see the action so much. If you think it breaks a rule I recommend putting in a ticket with the SC to get their take on it.
Hmmm...ok, hard to remember exactly when the image is gone. I'm pretty sure the image was taken at an angle that showed more hand, and implied use of that hand, than actual skin in that area. And, wasn't it more distant (much lower % of the photo than the lingerie one that's kinda up close and personal)?
I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.
It's not the amount of clothing, it's the implied action taking place. In the photo Linda submitted she actually had MORE clothing on than in this photo.
I guess I don't see the action so much. If you think it breaks a rule I recommend putting in a ticket with the SC to get their take on it.
I did submit a ticket requesting validation (for DQ purposes) and obviously didn't hear anything back (rightfully so).
I really wonder where the line is on "sexually explicit" and where it lines up with the TOS...that's the gist of this forum thread. If I'm totally out of line in asking then SC can hide this thread, the earth will keep spinning along. :-)
I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.
It's not the amount of clothing, it's the implied action taking place. In the photo Linda submitted she actually had MORE clothing on than in this photo.
I guess I don't see the action so much. If you think it breaks a rule I recommend putting in a ticket with the SC to get their take on it.
I did submit a ticket requesting validation (for DQ purposes) and obviously didn't hear anything back (rightfully so).
I really wonder where the line is on "sexually explicit" and where it lines up with the TOS...that's the gist of this forum thread. If I'm totally out of line in asking then SC can hide this thread, the earth will keep spinning along. :-)
I didn't mean to imply that you were out of line, it's just the SC can probably answer this better than the members. Unless you just want everyone's opinion.
I didn't mean to imply that you were out of line, it's just the SC can probably answer this better than the members. Unless you just want everyone's opinion.
No problem David...I didn't take it that way.
I don't have to worry about crossing this line as I will never enter a shot that remotely approaches the "sexually explicit" rules border. LOL.
I'm having a hard time thinking I'm alone in this observation and/or question, however based on the feedback in this thread thus far, it seems like a non-issue. The potential breech of the artwork rule recently garnered more attention. :-)
Now that I think about it, there's one in Lingerie that came real close to TOS section 4.2.(ix) - ("is generally offensive or in bad taste"). Then again, there was that "cheesy" photo that stuck around. :-)
So...I guess if the photo is not blatantly over-the-top then just about anything goes (except for the Leroy/Linda incident a while back).
You aren't the only one that noticed it, Dad. I remarked to myself at the time, "I wonder if this will survive review, it's pretty suggestive." And I remembered Linda's picture, and recall thinking they were about the same level of suggestive, but as you pointed out it's hard to remember and Linda's is gone, of course.
I don't actually think it SHOULD be axed, incidentally; if we were at a point where THAT is too suggestive, that's be over-the-top puritanical, IMO. Not saying you do, just musing...
If I remember correctly, Linda's picture showed her with her hand down her panties, just like this one does. Same thing, in my mind. If 1 is DQ'ed, the other one should also be. But there's a history of discrepancies when it comes to DQ's, I've found out.
If I remember correctly, Linda's picture showed her with her hand down her panties, just like this one does. Same thing, in my mind. If 1 is DQ'ed, the other one should also be. But there's a history of discrepancies when it comes to DQ's, I've found out.
I could be mis-remembering this, but it's my recollection that there was a *synergy* between Linda's and Leroy's images, a *dialogue* if you will, that magnified what was perceived as the inappropriateness. So perhaps Linda's alone, or Leroy's alone for that matter, would have survived? I donno. It was a long while ago.
They were looking at pictures of each other with the implication that's what they were using for "inspiration", if you will. LOL! I thought those were perfectly fine & in fun. I was surprised at the outrage at the time.
Maybe I'm out of touch with female anatomy, but isn't there a biiig difference between straight fingertips down panties (this photo) and a whole hand down panties? (what I remember of the other photo)
eta: By which I mean, I don't see any "action" in this photo, just a slightly suggestive pose.
So? Implied is the big word here. You can think what you like about what is being implied but in the end if it's not porn, it's legal. How can you state that this photo should be DQed just because of what you think is being implied? I can easily feel that the implication suggested in this photo is that she has crabs? Or she's about to scratch an itch.
Does the P in DPC stand for Prude? No it doesn't. :)
So? Implied is the big word here. You can think what you like about what is being implied but in the end if it's not porn, it's legal. How can you state that this photo should be DQed just because of what you think is being implied? ...
Well, if you read the OP you'll see that I was wondering how this image was allowed to remain based on the TOS. There was a precedent a couple years ago when a similar image was DQ'd and removed from the site.
I do agree with the NON-DQ decision, because although it's not an itch, it's also not implying actual sexual action (not for a few extra seconds). But that did make me laugh ;)
I'm no "prude", but in my opinion, any adult on this site that says they don't know what the "implied action taking place" is, is being disingenuous. I think this image walks right up to the TOU Agreement "line" and sticks a toe, err..finger, over the line.
It's a nice image, but I think my main concern would be that the TOU is there for a reason; there are a lot of children and young people on this site, and that is clearly not an image meant for their audience.
Not trying to fan flames. I have quite a few fairly young friends on this site, and I really wouldn't want them viewing images like that.
If I remember correctly, Linda's picture showed her with her hand down her panties, just like this one does. Same thing, in my mind. If 1 is DQ'ed, the other one should also be. But there's a history of discrepancies when it comes to DQ's, I've found out.
You can have a fingertip or 2 inside the top of your pants without masturbating! It's just an erotic pose.
However... Title including the word 'Lust' + Model looking at a photo of a guy + Whole hand down pants = Completely different situation!
You can have a fingertip or 2 inside the top of your pants without masturbating! It's just an erotic pose.
However... Title including the word 'Lust' + Model looking at a photo of a guy + Whole hand down pants = Completely different situation!
may be she was wondering what he has that she does not.
