HOME | DD
zzyzzx — C.C.3
[NSFW]
Published: 2004-05-16 06:28:14 +0000 UTC; Views: 57825; Favourites: 955; Downloads: 16650
Redirect to original
Description
Crystal Cove, CaliforniaRelated content
Comments: 183
Didn't looked them 'til now
They look like all the female porn stars nails 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I guess nothing's left to the imagination here
This looks rather pornographic to me.I wonder what DA's gonna do.Hope you don't get banned or anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is this your way to get fucking favourites or something?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It looks so
Wanna faves in dA? Upload some random crappy shoots with a naked chick and 400 horny teenagers will watch you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wonder if anyone notified the admins of the explicit nature of this shot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I reported this deviation twice over the past 2 weeks and nothing's been done yet. Figures.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Although the other photos on this site wouldn't be considered as offensive to the mainsteam... If everyone is going to report artworks that dont seem artistc to them... You might as well report EVERY SINGLE photo of your family, your dog, your cats, your baby...
I have seen many artworks that are in no way at all artistic... All the webcam shots, yeah veeeeery artistic. Seriously. Some people need thier prioritys cheaked... And what kind of genre are these people looking into to find this image?
Its wierd when we see the olden days of censorship in our current age
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not about what is considered art or not. It's whether or not this photo has abided by the rules of this website. Whatever social/cultural point of view people view this piece from, it's irrelevant. It's about whether or not the person who sumbmitted this piece read, understood and followed the rules that everyone else has to. It clearly states in the rules that at no time may a woman be depicted with her legs spread. That is what I reported. I like porn/nude art as much as the next person, but if there are rules set up for everyone to use why should this piece be exempt?
It's weird to see that in this day and age that people still find it strange that we should once in a while follow rules
have a good day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problems... I see your point (although there are alot of photos of females with thier legs spread on this site... Does this rule stipulate weather they must be cloathed or uncloathed to be offensive?)
Either way... I see your point
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
not wanting to be crass, I think the rule says if you can see inner labia or something like that?!
but yeah they have to be unclothed in order for the rule to be applicable
have a good one!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
yup, deviant art just does not care .... or they are kinda lagging because there are too many PVs to take care off ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok..fuck that..this is a allowed...but :devb33zlebubs: erect penis gets banned...yeah that's fucking sexist..
this is not art
this is porn....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
stupid lag...sorry for the triple post
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ok..fuck that..this is a allowed...but :devb33zlebubs: erect penis gets banned...yeah that's fucking sexist..
this is not art
this is porn....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ok..fuck that..this is a allowed...but :b33zlebubs: erect penis gets banned...yeah that's fucking sexist..
this is not art
this is porn....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
what an incredible body this model has...gonna have to look a bit further into ya gallery
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Don't take this the wrong way whatsoever....I am not trying to be rude by any means...but is this really considered art or professional? Maybe pro, but it seems a little pornographic to me! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think this would be better named "Hi-Res Hello" 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I can understand some peoples apprehension with this picture and I dont know DA's rules on obscenity but I browse DA daily and have seen many shots with men where you can clearly see everything. How is this different? Because its a woman? And if thats the case then why the double standard. If its ok to show a man's body totally nude then it should be fine for a woman as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, there is clearly a double standard going on. I don't think the dA team are very consistent in what they constitute as being art, and what they choose to delete.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No matter the opinion of the beholder, you cannot take away the fact that this IS art. The composition and lighting just show that! I personally think that her body language doesn't match as smoothly as it could have with her face, and I would have placed her somewhere else. But the overall picture is breath-taking! I must say that the glistening of the rock is my favorite part. Very nice job here, it would be against the goal of DA to take it down.
\M/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the composition of this shot is very standard and has nothing artistic. the cut feet even show the non-professionalism of this photographer. and the light is pretty classic.
i'm just.. blank when i see this picture.
a photo is art when the photographer has intentions behind a shot. what are the intentions here ? show a clitoris?
there are rules on this site, and in life in general. this photo belongs to porn.
you would never see a female sex like that in an erotic film. you would in a porn film. same here. erotic yes, porn no.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is everything on this site professional? I honestly think that the controversy is a little silly. Some people like certain pictures and some people do not. Even porn has been deemed art by the supreme court (though I have no outward opinion on this ruling). I think that everyone is entitled to an opinion the same as everyone is entitled to individual experimentation and expression.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i have the opinion that someone who's an artist has some perfectionnist character, and by that matter, tries to look professionnal. hence the fact i was talking about this not looking professionnal.
the majority of the people there aren't professionnal nor artists, that's a fact. now porn is something else. porn with amateur aspects is even something else..else
i mean, full view this image ! it's taken with a tourist camera, and even without any artistic intent. it's gratuit like we say here.
it didn't cost this person anything to produce this image
and it's worthless to my eyes. logic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
in my opinion, this picture is kind of offending. it's not sexy at all.. she has a gorgeous body but her legs being spread is too much. could be me though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A person who does not accept that this CAn be art is obviously very immature. It IS art and it IS very beautiful. It shows human defensivelessness and female delicasy (O_o) And I I read some of the comments you have received on this I think the people just do not care that you put mature content on this. It is mature and these people are very foolish to not notice you are obviously and artistic person with a focus on the female body. It is sexual, yes, but it is also very unique AND ARTISTIC. Must I stress that more?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the composition of this shot is very standard and has nothing artistic. the cut feet even show the non-professionalism of this photographer. and the light is pretty classic.
i'm just.. blank when i see this picture.
a photo is art when the photographer has intentions behind a shot. what are the intentions here ? show a clitoris?
there are rules on this site, and in life in general. this photo belongs to porn.
you would never see a female sex like that in an erotic film. you would in a porn film. same here. erotic yes, porn no.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Beautiful model...
Fantastic pose and composition...
IMHO, it is very difficult to pull off a shot including a detailed view of the labia without it looking like porn, but you pulled it off nicely!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I find this image almost as offensive as a nude black and white... and i dont find black and white nude's offensive at all
I bet if this was in black and white there would be no objections, and i feel the lighting position in itself is enough to warent this a "beautiful" peice
Since when has nakedness become so offensive... It was that very thing that caused the first sin... somthing about adam feeling ashamed because he realised he was naked and then god took offence to that or somthing?
Beaty takes on all shapes and forms, from the slim to the obese... and because a persons legs are open doesnt mean anything... she could have her mouth wide open (its another "sexual orific") and there wouldnt be any hopla...
Its about time got over the hopla of nakedness and "pornography"... theres a differance between art and smut... and i see nothing wrong with this image
good work... and dont let the conservitives get thier way
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...im conservative and i dont find this offensive.
and for the record, i do find this to be an artistic piece. It seems to me that people dismiss something as art the moment that it gets too "erotic" for them. granted, most religous types will find any kind of nudity wrong. but it wasent always like that. I think it was during the spanish take-over back however many hundreds of years ago that they started the thing with fig leaves over genetalia. They even went back and destroyed statues and altered other paintings. I do believe that the human body and its expression if one of the highest forms of art. So there is nothing really wrong with this.
I completely agree with you about the legs too.
anyway, nice art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Who is the model? She looks quite familiar...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the spread legs dont leave much to the imagination. Looks more like teen hormones/.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think you shouldn't get banned...if DA pulls this off its ridiculous... it's like DA Vinci, Mapplethorpe or Helmut Newton's work wouldn't be allowed either?
This is art...her pose is wonderful... I just dislike the plain and the shadow on her breast and the nails... She is beautiful and I think this shot wins a lot from her pose and the fact that she is wet and hiding her face... beautiful...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please, could you point me to the art? I don't see it anywhere
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>