HOME | DD

Description
I'm sorry for the crappy quality. I don't know why the hell it did that, and no matter what I did, no options got rid of it. :S

[EDIT]
I'm not sure if my question really applies here, considering we are speaking specifically of the Fetish category, but here it goes. [link] [link] [link] tl;dr what is exactly the reasoning behind disallowing erection photography/art? All I hear is that it's "too sexual" when the nature of the Erotica and Fetish subcategories are very sexual.
Overall most depictions of erections aren't allowed and while we do grant exceptions they are somewhat rare.
Generally speaking when we were putting together the list of themes which we made the decision that erections would not be allowed and that decision was based at least in part on legal advice. ~
Ah, I see then. That clears it up better.
You mentioned the granting of exceptions. Is the process and criteria whereby such exceptions are granted something you're free to go into? (For those unaware, deviantART has this big scary nondisclosure agreement legal setup where you spontaniously combust if you've got loose lips.)
Also, while I entirely support and applaud such exceptions, I imagine it would anger and confuse sections of the community who already feel they've been marginalised and discriminated against, and hypocritically, given this. Do you feel information dissemination that would help to calm this issue is a challenge?
Dametora: Just so you know, we're short on time, so please have your question pre-typed before we get to you. Thanks.
Unfortunately granting exceptions for certain content, like depicted erection, isn't something which has been formally standardized. Something like that typically comes about because the artistic styling or the artistic statement seems (subjectively) to be good enough to make the exception.
No, it's not at all a standard or "fair" decision making process and we don't expect to use it often. ~

So there you have it, folks. Erections are generally not allowed because of mysterious legal advice. That suits a bit better than what we've been told.
Also, artwork that doesn't fall within the boundaries set by the FAQ may remain up. It depends on the one answering the report, if something is reported.
So, knock on wood, folks.

I love how in the report thing for porn, it lists erections now, without specifying that, according to the FAQ, it's only erections that are "meant to illicit a sexual response."

Also, again, the fact that male nudes that are "meant to illicit a sexual response" are against the rules, but the same is not said of female nudes.

So it seems it was in preparation for their change to the rule.
Erections are now only for "educational"/"medical" use.

Bravo on the sexism dA.

[link]

Below the HR line is old shit.
Back when the erections rule said that erections were fine "unless intended to elicit a sexual response" (ie: meant to make you horny).

That rule was fucking stupid considering we have fetish and erotica subcategories for various main categories. What, do they think those aren't meant to "elicit a sexual response"? Fucking seriously.

Now the rule's been changed to where erections aren't allowed period unless for "medical or educational purposes" and they need to have proof that's what it's for. Like, seriously? Proof? Good luck with that, then.

Read:
[link]
[link]
Why aren't erections allowed? It makes no sense.
So I'm waiting for this supposed interview to explain it, as everything I get is "it's too sexual!" when I've reported shit tons of things that were blatantly fucking sexual and they came back as invalid.
EX: [link] [link] [link] [link] [link] (and the whole "Sensual Pleasure," "Hot Time," and "Never Forget This Time..." series)

$chix0r said we could contact her if we found any violations that slipped under the radar. I did note her, twice, but she hasn't gotten to it.

But, take a look at this...
[link]
[link]

There's also this;
[link]

I love it how whenever you think something is porn and report it as such, you're just a prude. The fucking dA "Invalid" response even includes this accusation:
"Please remember that while this image might meet your own personal definition for "pornography", your personal view and official policy could differ in several areas."

As I pointed out in that forum thread, it's ironically actually dA which are the prudes. They think porn is not art.
But porn is art. It's just art that's not allowed on dA. Or at least, what they define as porn, which is, as pointed out above "a schizophrenic stance" that they've taken in regards to porn.

Do I seem like a prude to you all? Or a woman-hater? Me, the bisexual who would talk about tits all day if you let her, always ready to inform you of how the female sexual response works? I'm a prude against female nudes?
Honestly.
----------------------------------
Nothing special, nothing fancy. Just a simple message.

You'll all remember my journal about the sexism of dA when it comes to artistic nudity , I'm sure.
You'll also remember my brief disgruntledness at the further lack of upholding the rules they've set, especially when it comes to women, too.

What happened to the human body being beautiful? An erection is a natural process not necessarily always tied with sexual arousal, and if so why is it that that isn't okay but images of women possibly sexually aroused is? It's not a man's fault should he get a woodie whilst being nude. Women may be more subtly sexually aroused, but yet when sexual arousal is clearly being instigated, ex the series masturbating women... it's still okay, as long as it's a woman and not a man...?

But yeah, I've already gotten into that.

This rather reminds me how apparently in Australia they're considering banning, or at least putting a very strong filter on, pornography of perceivably small-breasted women. The reason is that they "appear underaged." Consequently this could leak to men with perceived smaller penises or scrotal sacs. They also have set this up on porn containing female ejaculation, and a few other things.
How does it remind me? Because it's also based on what a "reasonable person" considers abnormal or offensive, etc.
"Reasonable person"... someone who purposely seeks these things out to report them for putting the slightest toe out of their personally established line? That's what it is. There's no such thing as a "reasonable person" in these kinds of things. Everyone has their own bias. Some people find the word "fuck" offensive whilst others do not. Which group are the "reasonable people"? In some places in the world, a "reasonable person" beats a woman should she be deemed by a "reasonable person" as being insolent, in other places no "reasonable person" would lay a hand on another person in a violent manner, no matter the reason.

As there is no REAL consensus of a definition of a "reasonable person," rules (and laws) pandering to them sould be eliminated. It's about as useful as basing everything around a Siamese cat's wants.

(ps - reference to stereotype about Siamese cats being fickle, Oompa Loompa Doopity Do...)

Though, it's an entirely different subject that I've already touched upon why it's related in aforementioned first journal. So, to bring it back...

Simply put, erections can be art, too.

OHHH CRAP GUYS IT'S A CHICK DEFENDING MEN'S RIGHTS. OH MY FUCKING GOD NO WAY.

Since someone's definitely gonna open their mouth before reading said journal, let me extract the exact piece I am mostly referring to:
"No, seriously, look at this, from the same FAQ:
"• Erections.
There should be no use of imagery depicting a male erection that a reasonable person would believe is intended to elicit a sexual response."

Wait... so... wait what?
So, what this tells me is that an image of an erection is okay as long as it's not meant to turn the viewer on.
However, images are removed any way if there's even any hint of an erection, yes even a partial erection, because the FAQ is just vaguely worded enough that it eliminates all images related.
ALSO it basically states that any image reported will be removed, since one can assume only "reasonable people" use the report system, eh? [glances at all of you who've had your images unfairly removed or wrongly accused of copyright violation].
I have seen such unfairness in erection imagery; someone made a series of ... very odd nude images. Don't know how to describe them, but one got a DD. "nObOdY pArTs" I believe is the name of the series. Anyway, I looked up the images that were removed, which had erections in them. They were not sexual in any way, the man was not stimulating himself, it was just expressiveness with an erection. Artistic Nude.
Yet it was still removed.
So, there's a bit of initial unfairness, but let's back up a bit.
A MALE image that could possibly turn the viewer on is against violation, but it says nothing about FEMALE images meant for such. There can be no MALE sexual images, but FEMALE ones are completely all right.
I mean, holy shit, do you all realize how many people make comments about how sexual someone is in a nude picture, male or female? And all the males have to worry about getting removed if someone should find their sexiness offensive and think they have an erection. How the hell is basing a policy on "what a reasonable person finds sexual" fair at all in ANY case?"

Description
I'm sorry for the crappy quality. I don't know why the hell it did that, and no matter what I did, no options got rid of it. :S

[EDIT]
I'm not sure if my question really applies here, considering we are speaking specifically of the Fetish category, but here it goes. [link] [link] [link] tl;dr what is exactly the reasoning behind disallowing erection photography/art? All I hear is that it's "too sexual" when the nature of the Erotica and Fetish subcategories are very sexual.
Overall most depictions of erections aren't allowed and while we do grant exceptions they are somewhat rare.
Generally speaking when we were putting together the list of themes which we made the decision that erections would not be allowed and that decision was based at least in part on legal advice. ~
Ah, I see then. That clears it up better.
You mentioned the granting of exceptions. Is the process and criteria whereby such exceptions are granted something you're free to go into? (For those unaware, deviantART has this big scary nondisclosure agreement legal setup where you spontaniously combust if you've got loose lips.)
Also, while I entirely support and applaud such exceptions, I imagine it would anger and confuse sections of the community who already feel they've been marginalised and discriminated against, and hypocritically, given this. Do you feel information dissemination that would help to calm this issue is a challenge?
Dametora: Just so you know, we're short on time, so please have your question pre-typed before we get to you. Thanks.
Unfortunately granting exceptions for certain content, like depicted erection, isn't something which has been formally standardized. Something like that typically comes about because the artistic styling or the artistic statement seems (subjectively) to be good enough to make the exception.
No, it's not at all a standard or "fair" decision making process and we don't expect to use it often. ~

So there you have it, folks. Erections are generally not allowed because of mysterious legal advice. That suits a bit better than what we've been told.
Also, artwork that doesn't fall within the boundaries set by the FAQ may remain up. It depends on the one answering the report, if something is reported.
So, knock on wood, folks.

I love how in the report thing for porn, it lists erections now, without specifying that, according to the FAQ, it's only erections that are "meant to illicit a sexual response."

Also, again, the fact that male nudes that are "meant to illicit a sexual response" are against the rules, but the same is not said of female nudes.

So it seems it was in preparation for their change to the rule.
Erections are now only for "educational"/"medical" use.

Bravo on the sexism dA.

[link]

Below the HR line is old shit.
Back when the erections rule said that erections were fine "unless intended to elicit a sexual response" (ie: meant to make you horny).

That rule was fucking stupid considering we have fetish and erotica subcategories for various main categories. What, do they think those aren't meant to "elicit a sexual response"? Fucking seriously.

Now the rule's been changed to where erections aren't allowed period unless for "medical or educational purposes" and they need to have proof that's what it's for. Like, seriously? Proof? Good luck with that, then.

Read:
[link]
[link]
Why aren't erections allowed? It makes no sense.
So I'm waiting for this supposed interview to explain it, as everything I get is "it's too sexual!" when I've reported shit tons of things that were blatantly fucking sexual and they came back as invalid.
EX: [link] [link] [link] [link] [link] (and the whole "Sensual Pleasure," "Hot Time," and "Never Forget This Time..." series)

$chix0r said we could contact her if we found any violations that slipped under the radar. I did note her, twice, but she hasn't gotten to it.

But, take a look at this...
[link]
[link]

There's also this;
[link]

I love it how whenever you think something is porn and report it as such, you're just a prude. The fucking dA "Invalid" response even includes this accusation:
"Please remember that while this image might meet your own personal definition for "pornography", your personal view and official policy could differ in several areas."

As I pointed out in that forum thread, it's ironically actually dA which are the prudes. They think porn is not art.
But porn is art. It's just art that's not allowed on dA. Or at least, what they define as porn, which is, as pointed out above "a schizophrenic stance" that they've taken in regards to porn.

Do I seem like a prude to you all? Or a woman-hater? Me, the bisexual who would talk about tits all day if you let her, always ready to inform you of how the female sexual response works? I'm a prude against female nudes?
Honestly.
----------------------------------
Nothing special, nothing fancy. Just a simple message.

You'll all remember my journal about the sexism of dA when it comes to artistic nudity , I'm sure.
You'll also remember my brief disgruntledness at the further lack of upholding the rules they've set, especially when it comes to women, too.

What happened to the human body being beautiful? An erection is a natural process not necessarily always tied with sexual arousal, and if so why is it that that isn't okay but images of women possibly sexually aroused is? It's not a man's fault should he get a woodie whilst being nude. Women may be more subtly sexually aroused, but yet when sexual arousal is clearly being instigated, ex the series masturbating women... it's still okay, as long as it's a woman and not a man...?

But yeah, I've already gotten into that.

This rather reminds me how apparently in Australia they're considering banning, or at least putting a very strong filter on, pornography of perceivably small-breasted women. The reason is that they "appear underaged." Consequently this could leak to men with perceived smaller penises or scrotal sacs. They also have set this up on porn containing female ejaculation, and a few other things.
How does it remind me? Because it's also based on what a "reasonable person" considers abnormal or offensive, etc.
"Reasonable person"... someone who purposely seeks these things out to report them for putting the slightest toe out of their personally established line? That's what it is. There's no such thing as a "reasonable person" in these kinds of things. Everyone has their own bias. Some people find the word "fuck" offensive whilst others do not. Which group are the "reasonable people"? In some places in the world, a "reasonable person" beats a woman should she be deemed by a "reasonable person" as being insolent, in other places no "reasonable person" would lay a hand on another person in a violent manner, no matter the reason.

As there is no REAL consensus of a definition of a "reasonable person," rules (and laws) pandering to them sould be eliminated. It's about as useful as basing everything around a Siamese cat's wants.

(ps - reference to stereotype about Siamese cats being fickle, Oompa Loompa Doopity Do...)

Though, it's an entirely different subject that I've already touched upon why it's related in aforementioned first journal. So, to bring it back...

Simply put, erections can be art, too.

OHHH CRAP GUYS IT'S A CHICK DEFENDING MEN'S RIGHTS. OH MY FUCKING GOD NO WAY.

Since someone's definitely gonna open their mouth before reading said journal, let me extract the exact piece I am mostly referring to:
"No, seriously, look at this, from the same FAQ:
"• Erections.
There should be no use of imagery depicting a male erection that a reasonable person would believe is intended to elicit a sexual response."

Wait... so... wait what?
So, what this tells me is that an image of an erection is okay as long as it's not meant to turn the viewer on.
However, images are removed any way if there's even any hint of an erection, yes even a partial erection, because the FAQ is just vaguely worded enough that it eliminates all images related.
ALSO it basically states that any image reported will be removed, since one can assume only "reasonable people" use the report system, eh? [glances at all of you who've had your images unfairly removed or wrongly accused of copyright violation].
I have seen such unfairness in erection imagery; someone made a series of ... very odd nude images. Don't know how to describe them, but one got a DD. "nObOdY pArTs" I believe is the name of the series. Anyway, I looked up the images that were removed, which had erections in them. They were not sexual in any way, the man was not stimulating himself, it was just expressiveness with an erection. Artistic Nude.
Yet it was still removed.
So, there's a bit of initial unfairness, but let's back up a bit.
A MALE image that could possibly turn the viewer on is against violation, but it says nothing about FEMALE images meant for such. There can be no MALE sexual images, but FEMALE ones are completely all right.
I mean, holy shit, do you all realize how many people make comments about how sexual someone is in a nude picture, male or female? And all the males have to worry about getting removed if someone should find their sexiness offensive and think they have an erection. How the hell is basing a policy on "what a reasonable person finds sexual" fair at all in ANY case?"