Muggers, please help us refine our photo policies. Would you consider the photo here appropriate for the main areas of the site or only appropriate in the adult section?

. 

If I am on top of my husband straddling him like that.... trust me there is something sexual going on. It is not art. And it does not belong in the main section of a q&a website.

Your mind, your thoughts. I can sit on top, or have my girlfriend sitting on top of me like this and talk about the day while we look each other's into the eyes.

ToS are likely to stay and it won't be allowed staying in the main area but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it in reasonable manner without turning a photo or its OP into a creep show. At least I would have expected so, but I might be wrong with all the loaded responses inside here.

Btw, art isn't a fixed thing. We might be looking differently on this point too.

There's a place for photos like these, and it 's beautifully done, by the way, but not on a main page at AM or any other forum site!!

adult section? for sure....but not the main page!!!!!!!!!

Btw, their photos would still be inappropriate even with this photo, and their alike being allowed (which likely isn't going to happen). It's my point by not creating rules based on expected behaviour, but create them based on how we want them to be (might be the same in this case ruled by the majority). However I'm not buying the former argument as the reason doing so.

If we play with the thought, of how many said they personally do not have anything against the photo staying in a public area, BUT based on expectations they will think it shouldn't be allowed? Means we censor our ways of communication, based on the few foul "kids" among us.

Would we do the same about politics and religion? Based on expectations of who cannot keep a fair language within these topics, should we add changes to our ToS? Some of the things said are certainly not child friendly. That's for sure.

Well, this is only me thinking out loud about some of the arguments used. Hmm.

Why all the exclamations? Does they make your point more valid? It's not an argument in itself, and it certainly doesn't feel like an exchange of ideas in a constructive atmosphere. Take care.

I wonder what make and model of car that is.

Lol. I have no clue. :-)

1. As an art critic, which I like doing, I would categorize it as "adult". br /> material. Not suitable for the front page. Even if they are dressed, they are in a sexual pose. That is suggestive. In art you would show it with erotic art. Not for children.

2. As a movie rating, you would label it "R". Not PG. A sex act is not PG. This is a sex act.

3. Although people may say they have seen worse art than this I'm museums, I have too. In the contemporary museums, they have soft porn. Ugh...not my cup of tea. Rooms have parental guidance signs, where parents have to supervise their children.

4. Besides, more young teenagers don't care for this art either.

I don't agree. I'm no art critic but I can certainly speak as a person.

1. It's your subjective evaluation. You do try to add it weight by mentioning you being an art critic. In Europe we don't sign our arts exhibit like this. We have erotica museums, but they will be on their own and not in connection with the public museums. Inside the erotica museums you'd definitely find more risky photos than this one. This one would go into any public exhibition without any remarks.

2. Movie ratings, hmm. I'm not familiar with those. I've seen shows, movies, music videos all free on the Internet with clear sexual undertones. Youngsters (we do talk about 14+ allowed to get inside here according to ToS) will watch these.

3. Not a new point. Just an elaboration on point 1. See above.

4. I'm not sure how this is connected with the context. If they don't care, they won't watch it? I believe you're right.

I just realized, you must be one of the 14 year olds. The end.

Very mature, Thrifty. I'm really impressed.

Self appointed Mods are the worst kind.

No because kids for one thing (which I think most of us forget) but also I was told at the beginning of joining this site we couldn't even have artistic nude paintings on here but artistic nudes usually have on partial clothing and are more about the female/male form rather than s-xual tones. If I can't even have that, why is this pic being considered?

This isn't even art. It features two women straddling each other in the backseat and big whoop that happens every day in LA, New York or Chicago anyways. Hardly unique.

Eh, we're looking at it from two different angles. The no-nudity policy isn't mine. I presently rent the server space and as part of my agreement with that company, I can't allow nudity of any kind.  

On the flip side, I don't find this offensive, but I do think it belongs in the adult section. However,  someone questioned the moderation of it and I'm open to hearing what Muggers want moderated. We put it up in adultMug first and the majority (by a landslide) felt it was appropriate for the main feed. Here, the opposite is true, so I know that I am moderating to the expectations of the community, and if there are issues later where someone is thinking their content is unfairly removed, I'll just refer them to this thread.

The answerMug you see today probably won't be the same one you see in five years. I do listen to members and implement changes when they're something most people want. In that respect, I think we're more of a community than just another site. Your opinion really does matter and will help shape the way the site functions. 

*like*

Silverwings, you love to quote psychological studies.

I would like to draw your attention to the studies by Masters and Johnson, Kinsey and Sher Hite. Over a period of some twenty years and hundreds of thousands of people, they were able to discover that homosexuality is a normal and natural, if minority, gender orientation.

Around 10 % of men and 5% of women are naturally gay. A further 30% of men and 20% of women are bisexual and able to choose which gender they prefer if they want to be monogamous.

After almost a century of trying everything, it was discovered that it is not possible to change gender orientation.

More recently with research into the human genome, it has been discovered that homosexuality comes from a recessive gene always linked to the mother's side.

It has also been proven that some people are born with genetic abnormalities which alter their physical gender, brain gender, and gender identification - such as hermaphrodites, XXY's, XYY's, and others.

Anything that occurs via the genes is natural.

I understand that the Bible takes a clear stance on sex, that it is only for procreation and for no other purpose. And also that modern believers have expanded this interpretation to assert that pleasure in sexual love is now permissible if the couple is married.

But I ask you to consider this thought, that if God made man in His image, and if God is perfect, then he could not have created the gene for homosexuality, or any other variation, by mistake.

If you wish to debate this point with me, I am willing. My purpose would not be to win or lose an argument, but merely to deepen the thinking and understanding of the topic

If I have offended or outraged you, it is not my intent. I only ask for thought.

It's very good photography as art.

It could appear in most city art galleries with no problems.

It is a very sexy image.

However, when the discussion on the main board turned to the topic of children, I suddenly realised that there is an issue.

Re. another strand of the conversation on this question, I don't object to kids being taught about homosexuality. I think it's a necessity, especially in the context of understanding and acceptance of it as natural. And the prevention of bullying and associated suicides. But the internet is not a safe medium for such education, no matter how well monitored a site may be.

Although I was initially not worried about such a photo appearing on the main board, after considering the paedophile issue, I decided that safe is better than sorry - and I shifted to the position that the image wasn't right for the main board. Paedophiles use sexualised imagery to groom their marks. They use them to manipulate children into compliance and obedience. Even though there is a swamp of sexualised imagery out there on the Net, this site needs to avoid becoming part of that problem.

When you said on the main board that you would like to have the option of a private photo album on your profile page such as you had on EP, I thought that was a brilliant idea.

I appreciate your thoughts.

I think some of the issues here might be cultural based. Some societies/countries/religious branches have larger angst dealing with various topics than others.

The internet is as the television out of our control as parents. I am aware that having talks with our children is a necessity. It's the only way we can protect them. I am aware of the kind of pictures that are shared among the younger teenagers. This one isn't even close, and would be of absolutely no interest. I can assure you. At least in the area of the world where I live.

I have talks with my kids where we talk about the media, and what they are being exposed to. I don't daemonise the stuff but give them tools to deal with it. It is a necessity. The cowardly terrorist attack in Nice just showed us this one more time. It's all over the news with breaking news constantly on the television and in updates on all the social media. Kids do talk about this stuff too. We got to prepare our kids for all the stuff that happens around them in the world. Just like they ask about Trump and if he really is like Hitler. They do talk about this. This is their reality. Don't think just because we don't see it or hear it, that they don't do it. Why is teenage pregnancy a far more widespread phenomenon in some parts of the world? Lack in sex ed, lack in taking the kids serious, and let them in on stuff and the consequences. Lack in education.

Bringing in paedophilia in connection with this photo is in my honest opinion very wrongly. Very wrongly.

I think I'm soon done with commenting on this thread. The ToS will be interpreted as previous by JA and her team. It is confirmed via the debate here. I accepted it already when the photo was taken down, I told JA before we made this experiment to see how the community looked on it. I did however also tell her I felt she was wrong. It is a question of the eyes of the beholder, and if the community looks at it as a sexual-loaded photo, it will be their reality. That will be about it.

I really like your approach and I think you do a brilliant job.

Rpf~  

Not all of us watch cable tv.