How do you define 'Acceptible' Porn ?

Ms. Cat....I shall have a look at the 'porn' and comment on its being appropriate or not, but a moral crusade is a little different to a property theft issue.
You've seen my nudes at DA [I think you have] and I don't think they are porn, primarily as they are in context with the 'art culture' of DA.

Anyway...I'm off to check it out...

I've looked through all of the Logonui's on the site, and I really couldn't rate any of them as 'porn' or inappropriate for a general access site.
What I DID see was about half of them using definitely suspect copyright images....I'm sure Escher wouldn't be too happy...and Apple no doubt will send in their storm troopers soon enough...
Not one image there was something you wouldn't see on a television commercial for bras and knickers...[at least in Oz, anyway]...

[Doreenosis]
All that not withstanding, those same 'girlie' images wouldn't be acceptable here on Wincustomize. Our standards are a little higher in both creativity and authentic copyright....

ok, but some of the Logonui's in question, I did notice that one or two of the Girls were actually completely naked, One such girl showing her breasts. Ok at a side angle not showing her nipples or anything, but still leaving nothing to the imagination.

Other images of girls in bra's and suspenders. Now don't get me wrong, this seems like Soft Porn so far, but how many people get accidently trapped into a site that advertises Porn with the same kind of images. Pictures dipicting Women in this way.

No offence to Red Blooded Men in the Community but I just want minors to be protected from these things.

How many mothers will walk into their sons Bed Room and find either a Half naked Girl as a Logon screen, or worse. Some Dog Do, will hit the pan, as I am not sure every Mum throught the world will appreciate this. ..O~f course depending on the Tolerance of their Mum

Except of course what kind of society does this encourage ? - women to be percieved as 'Meat' on offer for men to drool over ? ok it is very much a moral issue. But Lets have a degree of decency

I accept some of them are not really that graphically strong, and as Some men refer to them as being 'Artisitic' I am not sure I see the Artistic part of this, but that is the age old arguemnt here.

Well I am not trying to be a feminist either. Just want to define what we really see as being acceptible

The absolute worst logonui on that site is a picture of Jennifer Aniston thats hows part of her butt (and that was the cover of Rolling Stone not long ago, which means PLENTY of minors saw it without ever setting virtual foot on that site) and a picture or two of women in see-thru shirts. WHile it's not something I'd let my children watch (if I had any), it's also not something I'd deem as porn.

Additionally, boomgames isn't advertised as a kid-friendly site, is it?

As for the parental issue... Let parents be parents. If they discover their children are using that type of material, it's up to them to put a stop to it. I'm not about to infringe on someone's right to post what they want on their website "just in case" there are parents out there that let their children surf the web unattended. IF they do, chances are they'll come across MUCH worse than a picture of Jen Aniston's butt crack before long.

Call me a red blooded male, but I'm with firestorm on this one. The issue here is parental responsibility. There's plenty of real porn on the available for those willing to seek it out. It is our responsibility to raise out children in such a way that they do not seek it out and when they do, to monitor them and stop it.

Obviously this is an emotionaly charged issue for a lot of people and really should be a matter of personal judgement. The art world has always been more liberal when it comes to figure studies. Classical nude images are not considered inapropriate for any age group.

The free speech issues which protect art allow almost anything to be portrayed. The right to free speech however is important enough that most abuses of it are minor in comparison with the effects of allowing broad social repression based on someone's opinion. If you have free speech there will be things that offend you.

Finding something offensive is a good reason to not go look at it. Having opinions is a human condition and is something we all deal with on a daily basis. Finding 'truth' in the chaos of life in our modern world should be a difficult enough task to keep people busy searching for answers in themselves. Don't worry about the rest of the people, they'll have to sort it out on their own...

k well it makes me wonder if some of these 'Artists' actually had their LAST Girl Friend being a piece of Papaer straight from Play Boy Magazine or some thing. I mean don't these people ever find a Real Girl friend ?? Sorry Just find it 'Perverted'. >

that's a lot more to the point cat

I thought that would hit the spot

Ms Cat....yes, it only says a lot about the maturity and mind-set of the 'artist' submitting this 'work'.....most likely a male teen, with little [if any] respect for women and woman-hood as human beings, only 'eye-candy'.

You can rest assured that you won't have concerns about such content on Wincustomize.com....

There is a huge difference between porn, erotica, art and just plain boring nudity. I guess it's the parent'sresponsabilities to define the difference. If I made a wallpaper showing Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which of these would that be? When the other day I opened a woman magazine (I forget which one, Vogue or something) and saw a perfume ad showing a woman integrally naked, which on was that? If my son walks into the bathroom just as I step out of the shower, which of these is it? In a few years, when my sons strip down and compare each other, which kind of nudity will that be?

I mean, it's really up to the parent to make the distinction, not society's. Each one's values are different. I personnaly don't believe in sexual asepsis, nor into showing the human body as a bad or dirty thing. These are my personal values, but other people's are different. If a movie or a web site contains some nudity, I, as a parent, should be the only deciding if it's appropriate or not for my children, not the government, some Church or any kind of moral police.

My 2 cents.

No one say's Nudity is Dirty, or Shameful. But the way it is exploited it can be.

A naked person in their own house is no big deal. They are in their own home just got out of the shower or Bath Tub. (Incidentally A guy was prosecuted in this country recently because a Women saw him in his house in a Window Naked.) He said he had just got out of a bath Tub.

She was observing him from across the Street. and accused him of all kinds of things. He basically was charged with indecency.

I am in the mind that it is actually a joint responsibility for both Parents and the Law/Government to moderate Things such as Pornography in Society. The LAW decides on what is FIT for us all to view watch and what age groups this is acceptible to.

If you abandon Laws and moral Social Guidelines that keep Society in check, then this would lead to Anarchy. Society needs Social Guide Lines to keep order in Society, which protects certain indivduals in Society that are other wise Vulnerable.

I.E of course Children...

No matter what form of control you would like to see, for someone it will be wrong and a cause for rebellion. The more that legislation is used to enforce morality the more it is open to abuse and repression. Not only as regards porn but all types of behavior and thought. It happens so often that the most vocal protectors of our morality get exposed at some point as perverted and hypocritical. The potential for wrong thinking generating bad laws that foster political repression is too great a risk.

We don't need morality police, we need moral people. As Donovan said "the whole wide world has taken far too much methedrine".

(Incidentally A guy was prosecuted in this country recently because a Women saw him in his house in a Window Naked.) He said he had just got out of a bath Tub.

To add to this point... In the early sixties a man in Iowa, a single parent and a schoolteacher, had his 6 year old son taken from him and put in a foster home and all the other horrible things that go with that (fired, financially destroyed by legal fees, blackballed from the community etc) because he drove an imported red sports car. The case went on for many years before he won the custody of his own child back and the only 'damming' evidence against him in this small rural community was his MG and his lack of a wife.

nudity is a part of the world, yes some find it offensive and some find it art. The images I saw on the above site are not explicite sexual content and a lot less graphic than most of what you can see in a fine art museum. If the legal system is to decide what is moral and should be monitored, eliminated, locked away, then we are all in trouble, for there will be no end. If the images are not of an explicite sexual nature, underage, abusive, and etc then I personally do not see any problems. If we start doing monitoring then we become like the public school system that decided Alice in wonderland was not aloud to be in a library because it has reference to drugs. Totally closing ones eyes to all of lifes content brings about more problems that the chance exposure to something mild. Personally I think the few images of nudity on that site are very mild and less then what is scene on TV, MTV, and all age over the counter magazines. I have seen worse in my GF's vogue magazines. I can understand some people may be offended by the brief exposed flesh, but at the same time, going to a beach is a lot more revealing in some aspects. Sexuality is part of human nature and we all have out own views on what is correct and what is wrong, I guess the goal is to find a happy medium, something that general society can except in part. Since the net is a global community we must also take that into account. In some ways the US has a very closed mind on nudity compared to many other countries.

So the question is, does the display of a single beings form in a none sexual act really deserve such harsh critism?

porn is a great educator

I believe that there is a difference between nuditity and porn. I don't believe that those images were at the porn level but on the other hand these are images that I would not want my children to have access too.

My children are at a young enough age that I can easily moderate the content that they view. However as they get older it will be tougher.

What I think would be right is for BoomGames to rate their site as having sexual content. So that way if I choose to use any filters I would not have to worry about my children stumbling accross that site.

Nah, parents should just keep an eye on their kids and not let the law do that for them.

BTW....the word is 'acceptable'....

Craeonics - 'Nah, parents should just keep an eye on their kids and not let the law do that for them.'

Yes parents should keep an eye on their children as much as they can. But in reality its not always possible. (And if you think it is then you live in a fantasy land ).

Anyway, I'm not asking the Law to enfore it. I am asking the website to voluntarily rate their site via the standards that have been put in place so that someone who chooses to filter sites, that are rated to have adult content, can do so.

I am much more disturbed by the amount of gore and violence in certain wallpapers, than I am by showing a woman in a bikini. But for some reason, no one would even think of rating these as adult content...

I think it was Jack Nickolson who, talking about movie ratings, once said someting like "Kiss a breast and the movie is rated PG, but cut it off with a chainsaw and it will be rated G."
Disturbing but true.

Good point paxx....didn't think about that.

That just proves things. Sex is taboo, violence is not.

T-man: What standards? I don't feel much for rating sites at all.

Hmm, there was more, but it slipped...