Now, why do I have to tag it in the forums, but it's right in my face in the galleries?

I know I can filter out "nudity", but why does it have to be all or nothing? Why do I have to choose between being a complete prude or having huge naked bottoms showing on my screen without a click? What was wrong with the old system? Not sleazy enough?

While we simply cant make everyone happy all of the time, you do have a choice of if you wish to see the nude, violent or bad language or not by using the tags.

i think what most folks are saying about this issue is not that they are opposed to nudity, but rather the FORM/TYPE of nudity. whenst the Advisory Thumbs were being utilised, two things occurred...

first, you were not accidentally subjected to nudity whenst you were p'raps in a place where you need to be mindful of such things - for instance, if you were on your lunch break at work & were browsing...

secondly, you were able to learn who used nudity in artistic ways vs. gratuitous nudity, thus you could opt to pop or not pop into the image based on having knowledge of someone's style...

the way it is now forces gallery viewers into the 'all or nothing' arena, so it strips away the ability to essentially customise your own individual viewing experience in many ways, and i think that is more to the point of what the initial post is referring to [well, my interpretation of moriador's comments, so i could be mistaken...]

We are born nude why hide the fact

I want to protest the lack of MALE butts in the galleries!

Giana posted at 11:08AM Sat, 24 October 2015 - #4234452

i think what most folks are saying about this issue is not that they are opposed to nudity, but rather the FORM/TYPE of nudity. whenst the Advisory Thumbs were being utilised, two things occurred...

first, you were not accidentally subjected to nudity whenst you were p'raps in a place where you need to be mindful of such things - for instance, if you were on your lunch break at work & were browsing...

secondly, you were able to learn who used nudity in artistic ways vs. gratuitous nudity, thus you could opt to pop or not pop into the image based on having knowledge of someone's style...

the way it is now forces gallery viewers into the 'all or nothing' arena, so it strips away the ability to essentially customise your own individual viewing experience in many ways, and i think that is more to the point of what the initial post is referring to [well, my interpretation of moriador's comments, so i could be mistaken...]

Exactly.

I don't mind nudity at all. But I want control over whether I see it or not, without having to censor my entire experience. As it is, the site is not safe to browse in public, unless you're willing to forgo everything even remotely risque. Whereas before, you could happily choose whether to click on a thumbnail with content warning or not.

prime comparative examples of the varying & different stylings/uses of nudity in images [at least for me]. i feel if we returned to the policy requirements that disallowed nudity in thumbs and the nudity tag listed below the image's title, just those simple little changes, it could go miles in solving a few things. yes, it would mean that folks would need to create an actual thumbnail for themselves [oh my!], but it's a tiny extra extra step if you want to post images with nudity, and shouldn't be a huge issue [or maybe it would be, who knows...sigh] however, all or nothing just simply is not the solution when it comes to 'art', as some nudity is tasteful, and other nudity seems to be there for other reasons.

i agree, we are all born nude, so why hide it. i also think that we are all born with the ability to know our own tastes & feelings about everything in this life in terms of how it relates to ourselves, so why deny us the ability of free choice? [shrug]

Creating a thumbnail was never an issue for me, anyway.. I still create thumbs without nudity when I post a pinup or anything else with nudity. The viewer should be given a choice on whether or not to view it, IMHO.

I honestly don't know why all these 'revolutionary' changes were necessary in the first place.... sigh

what i find so interesting is that Rendo does create auto-thumbs for nudity in certain sections and views. the above is what my Gallery Favourites looks like whenst i am not logged in, thus filtering out nudity the way that Rendo wants to have happen in that mode, but it is not removing the fact of their existence. there are other areas that give the same results if not logged in, but if you are in an actual individual's gallery or say on the What's New page and not logged in, then no nice, attractive white advisory shows.

so if the site can already generate the above result, why couldn't the parametres of the code be expanded to include all of the galleries in all varying viewing modes regardless of being signed in or not?