Do we need to define what nudity is?

[Kester Pelagius]

Do we?

I'm thinking having some guidelines for what is and isn't nudity might benefit the board, especially for those of us who post screen caps.  As a general rule when posting screen caps that involve any overt display of skin I do my best to pause on indistinct frames where there are lots of shadow so you couldn't tell what is going on or, failing that, I tweak the image with a bit of blurring or pixellization.  If you've read any of my reviews you've probably noted this.

But what is nudity?

Or rather I suppose the real question should be: What is offensive?

Because that's really what the point here is.  I know some have a very loose definition of nudity while others are very strict.

For instance most here would probably have no problem if someone posted pics of Vampirella.  She may just be a fictional character but she's drawn as a rather voluptuous, scantily clad, buxom vixen whose costume leaves little to the imagination.  But what about posting pics of classical nude paintings like, say, something dealing with Aphrodite, Sirens, or the Rape of the Sabines?  Does the offesnive nature of a nude change based on context?

And what about movies where the actors are in partial latex body paint like Killer Tongue?  Are they in costume or nude?

[Andrew]

If it would be safe for most people to view on a work computer, then it's good.  For many workplaces that means something no more racy than what could be found in the US version of Maxim (that might stretch it a bit at times).

Recognized works of art, like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, are going to be generally acceptable.  Since this is defined as a movie site, a thread that contains nothing but works of art depicting nudes is going to draw a critical eye - because there's obviously something unusual going on.

Body paint is not good to go.

[ghouck]

Do we?

No, it's pretty simple, doesn't need any explaining IMO.

[Rev. Powell]

I'm not sure clarification is really possible.  There are too many possible scenarios, and every borderline picture probably needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis.  Just scroll through the pictures in the "Hottest Actresses" thread and you'll see a number of questionable images where the actress is totally nude, but carefully posed so that none of her private parts are visible.  Or, where she is clothed but wearing a sheer negligee so that there's a lot of flesh visible.  

Obviously, depictions of genitals, buttocks or female breasts constitute nudity.  Is it OK if the "offensive" parts are blurred or pixilated or in shadows?  It's hard to say; I guess it depends on the context of the picture.  Putting large digital "stickers" over the naughty bits of the girls frolicking in ZOMBIE LAKE seemed to due the trick.  

I use the MPAA test: if this image was submitted to Jack Valenti's henchmen, would they rate it PG-13 or R?  Often a director will think something is inoffensive, but the ratings board disagrees.  And it's true that they're necessarily inconsistent sometimes, because every picture is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, accounting for the context.  

I don't exactly remember the details of pictures you posted that got removed, but I do remember they caused me to raise an eyebrow and were borderline.  

In short, I think you're asking for the impractical in defining a policy which takes into account every possible permutation of nudity.  But I can understand your frustration.  
 

[Kester Pelagius]

If it would be safe for most people to view on a work computer, then it's good.  For many workplaces that means something no more racy than what could be found in the US version of Maxim (that might stretch it a bit at times).

Some glamour photography can get pretty racy.  But those are good general guidelines for the posting of pictures.

So would you say it's okay to post, say, a frame from a movie with a candle or other item in the foreground strategically covering up naughty bits?  So long as NOTHING is actually shown?  (And so long as there's no scene of a sexual nature involved.)

What about bare back views?  Is it okay so long as nude arses aren't shown?

And what about pics of nudes in water, like, say in a pool?

Or would you say it's just best to avoid posting caps of any nude* or partially nude scenes, period?

(*) Whether or not anything is actually shown.

Recognized works of art, like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, are going to be generally acceptable.  Since this is defined as a movie site, a thread that contains nothing but works of art depicting nudes is going to draw a critical eye - because there's obviously something unusual going on.

In other words, yes, context is important.  If the thread isn't somehow related to movies, say art that has appeared in movies, then it's probably going to cause problems.

Thanks Andrew.

[ER]

Oh! Oh! I know this one!!!! Nudity issssss...uhhhhh....wearing your birthday suit! They covered that for us in Sunday school!

[Kester Pelagius]

I'm not sure clarification is really possible.  There are too many possible scenarios, and every borderline picture probably needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis.  Just scroll through the pictures in the "Hottest Actresses" thread and you'll see a number of questionable images where the actress is totally nude, but carefully posed so that none of her private parts are visible.  Or, where she is clothed but wearing a sheer negligee so that there's a lot of flesh visible.  

Good point.

Obviously, depictions of genitals, buttocks or female breasts constitute nudity.  Is it OK if the "offensive" parts are blurred or pixilated or in shadows?  It's hard to say; I guess it depends on the context of the picture.  Putting large digital "stickers" over the naughty bits of the girls frolicking in ZOMBIE LAKE seemed to due the trick.  

But when posted to a quiz thread you don't want crystal clear pics.  The darker, the blurry, the better to keep your audience guessing.  

I don't exactly remember the details of pictures you posted that got removed, but I do remember they caused me to raise an eyebrow and were borderline.

As I was lazy and didn't log into imageshack to U/L those to my account so I can't even send you a PM with the links but, in short, there were mayb three Andrew removed.  Though only one was apparently commented on, and NOT the one I thought would raise eyebrows.

The first: Kekko, in shadows, behind bars.  Right hand covering area of right breast shadows cover the area of left breast, scarf covering what it covers.  

The second: This is the one I thought might raise eybrows as it was the only cap I posted of Kekko out of the shadows.  It was a side shot with good lighting that shows no more than you'd see a actress on the red carpet showing who is wearing a dress slit up the side.

The third: The one that apparently caused the problem was a blurry pic, mid waist up to forehead, and is so dark I almost didn't post it.  What someone imagined they saw in this pic is beyond me. It's a frame between frame pic that, yes, looks sinister.  But besides that?

I chose blurry pics and pics where the character was in shadows so you couldn't really see her.  I thought it wouldn't have been much of a quiz if I just took a straight on pic of Kekko Kamen wielding her nunchuks and pasted Hello Kitty heads over her breats.  Though there'd probably have been less trouble if I had.  But no worries I've learned my lesson.  NO MORE KEKKO KAMEN!

In short, I think you're asking for the impractical in defining a policy which takes into account every possible permutation of nudity.  But I can understand your frustration.  

Ah, but doesn't a nude have to be naked?  How can you be naked if you're not totally nude?  If you aren't totally nude then are you really naked?

[Andrew]

The third: The one that apparently caused the problem was a blurry pic, mid waist up to forehead, and is so dark I almost didn't post it.  What someone imagined they saw in this pic is beyond me. It's a frame between frame pic that, yes, looks sinister.  But besides that?

You might want to turn up the brightness on your monitor.  That pic was dark, but it was quite clear that the picture was of a topless woman.

[Kester Pelagius]

You might want to turn up the brightness on your monitor.  That pic was dark, but it was quite clear that the picture was of a topless woman.

You know that someone would play with contrast levels never really occurred to me.  I suppose it should have but it didn't.  Now that gives me something to worry about when using screen caps in my reviews.  Thanks alot Andrew!

And, yes, now that I've loaded the image in Photostudio and played around with the brightness and contrast I suppose I can see the problem.  Long way to go to see breast shaped blurs though.

Contrast levels!  Who would have thunk it.  Should have thought about that.

*sigh*

Makes me feel old.

[raj]

Just remember, underneath our clothes we are all naked. 

[indianasmith]

But have you ever noticed that everything you sit on feels like underwear?

[Trevor]

If I'm standing in front of a full length mirror with no clothes on (me, that is, not the mirror) and said mirror explodes and shatters because of the horror it sees standing before it, that is extreme and also vomit-inducing nudity. 

[Jack]

But have you ever noticed that everything you sit on feels like underwear?

It feels like chair shaped underwear - it's so weird!