Taking a look a gilo25's gallery and specifically the images he points out are similar (i.e. breast touching) to the "removed" image...one can't help but wonder what activity was depicted that suggested such "an overt sexual feeling" requiring that image to be deemed "unsuitable". Much of his work, IMHO, suggests "an overt sexual feeling" which should not be considered "unsuitable" in general nor should it be mistaken for "prurient".

Looking at his other images, it could appear an inconsistent standard may have been applied, although it is hard to say without seeing the actual image. It would seem to me, especially if this were a case of only one member complaint and coupled with the quality and similarity of images already in gilo25's gallery, a much more specific and detailed explanation could have and should have been given as a courtesy to gilo25.

That said...perhaps it is time to establish a less vague standard than "unsuitable" and a tad less subjective then "discretion", at least to the extent that it serves as a basic guideline that the members can understand will be followed. It may also be time for the site to create an actual appeal process for such instances. A legitimate process a member can follow, that can be assured of fairness and legitimacy.