Allow art nude photos#240

People leave Insta for the extremely strict censorship rules where it is not possible to show any nude art. On Twitter it is possible to show nudes, so why not here?

“Nude Art” is typically an excuse made by people who want to post pornography. It is basically never art, nor does it have any value. People are leaving Instagram because it is bad for their self esteem, displays unrealistic body types, and in many cases because of the over-abundant “nude models” forcing their nudes down your throat 24/7. You might think it’s artistic, for some reason, but the average person scrolling through a photo sharing app on a Sunday afternoon doesn’t want to be hit with your wife’s boobs, no matter how artistic you think they are.

Nudes, sex bots and thinly veiled porn are what killed tumblr, vampire freaks, MySpace, 90% of Facebook, half of Reddit, most of Instagram, and almost killed tik tok until they changed their policies and stopped allowing it. Deviant art and Flickr both lost users when they started allowing it.

Sorry…Info… or what your name really is, I accept that you consider “nude art” pornography and you do not see the value of “nude art” but please do not state it as a widely considered fact. And yes I do agree with you it might be not for everybody, therefore I think there should be an option to turn it on or off, mostly because of age restrictions, but also because not everybody appreciates seeing nudes. But to ban it is rather arbitrary, should we also ban any street photos, because a minority does not want to see it?

I’m disappointed that you make it personal by stating I want to post my wife’s boobs and that I find them artistic, I assume you know nothing about me, if you do, you would know what type of photos I’m making. Please do reconsider that statement. Not because I’m offended, but because it is not supporting or helping the argument you are trying to make.

Cheers, Imar

“Info”: What is or isn’t “pornography” is a debate as old as time. And I certainly think that being able to filter out “not safe for work” photos is a necessary feature, should nudes be allowed on Glass.

While I agree the perpetuation of unrealistic body standards is a serious social issue, it’s reductionist to lay the blame on “nudes” or “porn”. A covered nipple or penis doesn’t transform a photo from one perpetuating an unhealthy body image to a healthy one.

Photography has a long history of celebrating and artistically (yes, artistically!) employing the shape of the uncovered human body, sometimes in an overtly “erotic” manner, and sometimes as a shape, without sexual overtones of any kind. (“Which is which” can be fodder for interesting discussion in and of itself.)

Also:

• Anecdotally, as a community of photography lovers, I’ve noticed that the Glass community seems to have an unusually high proportion of “unconventionally beautiful” bodies and faces compared to other photo sharing platforms, and at least so far, I’ve never seen a single negative, judgmental comment in response to that.

• Remember that Glass requires a $30/year subscription to post content, and has publicly committed to eschewing algorithmically sorted feeds. This has a transformative effect on the kind of users it attracts, and how they behave. Why people behave better on platforms that charge money and don’t reward algorithmically “gamed” content could probably be the subject of many formal studies and doctoral theses, so we’ll have to put a pin in discussing it further. But the short takeaway is: You can’t assume that anything that supposedly happened on other (free, algorithmically curated) platforms will recur here.

Respectfully, I think you’re making the classic mistakes of confusing nudity with sexuality, and sexuality with pornography. And also making very big “what if” assumptions about the effects that nudity might have in an environment that treats its users as paying customers (because they are) instead of monetized nodes in a toxic, attention-driven economy.

I have left glass because of this discussion. The only reason I was using a paid app was to avoid having photos of naked women shoved in my face by male photographers. I’m tired of this irritating aspect of the online photography and modelling community. It’s not art. It doesn’t make a statement. 90% of the time it’s just photographers who make women extremely uncomfortable posting photos of women they terrified into posing. As an ex model I have zero interest in seeing my trauma reflected in others’ eyes. Until this community makes a firm statement against NSFW content especially if it involves minors, I’m leaving. I don’t want to see a great concept ruined like the rest of the sites I loved. FYI Instagram and tumblr were cancelled BECAUSE of the nude content. Their predominantly female audience was sick of it being turned into a porn site instead of a wholesome space to post your horse girl photos. If I’m the only woman brave enough to say what most of us (outside the sex trade) are thinking so be it.

No, you are not going to normalize porn. You’re just going to end up in yet another empty space alone with the other pornographers.

I’m not here to debate. I won’t have porn shoved in my unconsenting, did not seek it out face. I will not stay on a platform where there is a risk that I will be forced to view pornography.

Thank you for your contribution. I’m sorry for your traumatic experiences as a model.

I think that there is a huge difference between a nude (person without clothes) or porn (depicting erotic behavior). Especially in the role of art.
That is why I suggest age and/or interest filters.

I used to believe that. Until “artists” started displaying children in underpants and nude women all over my city and using the word “art” to get away with it. Why does this “art” only display female and child bodies? Why is this “art” limited to white bodies? Why is this “art” focused solely on the exact stereotype of femininity/sexuality found in porn? If there’s a point you can’t get across with clothes on, don’t make it. Instagram has age filters. Pornographers, especially the ones who call their horrible photos of naked models, “art” don’t stay behind the wall. The only thing redeeming this platform was that you weren’t forced to view their content.

And fyi I know literally zero models (and I know hundreds) who do not share my “personal experience as a model”. The (always male) photographers who want to display their pervy nudes always use the “art” excuse because their end goal is to humiliate beautiful girls in front of as many people as possible. They are not positive contributors to the art community, but they make a lot of money selling photos of naked girls to other pervs. Especially when they can use the word “art” to excuse the use of underaged and juvenile models. People are getting smarter, and I hope for the safety of all women and girls that we just entirely refuse to work with them in future.

So by the strict interpretation here, literally thousands and thousands of classic sculptures would not be allowed (although I have posted one from Hearst Castle of Aphrodite and it seems to have been allowed). David by Michelangelo, Venus de Milo, hell, the entire Sistine Chapel would not be allowed. Works by Stieglitz would not be allowed, but pictures of the semi erotic paintings of his wifeGeorgia O’Keefe would be allowed because they are flowers not vaginas (We promise!). I think that there is a definite difference between nudity and pornography. I think the audience here is smart enough to know the difference and can self police. See something inappropriate? It gets marked, fuzzed out until it is reviewed. Just my 2 cents worth.