I was never shocked if I opened a page and the first thing I saw was a nipple... Not even if close to my face. :p

Anyways, this policy thing needs some review.
In another 5 years there will be only architectural pictures allowed or what?
Or should this site end as an huge advertising platform for certain 2D/3D software?

Right now one could not even post pictures that document war crimes just because they are way to violent, disgusting, whatever and they depict people that maybe are naked and/or were or will be harmed, killed, ... Basically they often contain exactly the things that are not allowed to show.

I don't talk about the thumbnails, but the picture itself that must not contain this and that and whatever else and blabla. Basically an empty black picture is allowed.
Or one that depicts a small cat... But only if it's not aroused of course.
Shouldn't a bee sitting on a flower to collet pollen be forbidden as well? It's sexual action so to say...

Less offensive said: To separate all the pure sexual action oriented pictures from the more moderate ones was maybe a good step, but to comply with everyone who complains about that nature is as nature is, now that is simply not good.

What other reason than commerce is there to follow those complaints? I terribly fail to see it.
A professional art website should depict any art because philosophy and logic demands it.
Art is art, not because everything is perfect (than there would be not a single picture) nor because the artist is of great renown but because the art is an expression of somebody.
If it's an site dedicated to the art of ... Tizian, then there would be pictures done by Tizian.
If it's an site about art done with whatever then there would be art done with whatever and by whoever.

And nothing else.