was that a struggle session or what? 4 months later we still got some coals glowing! good times
but like nobody disagreed with that, just the idea it deserved to be called 'horny' and the idea similar content shouldn't be allowed. which might not have been your actual suggestion, but on a forum with lots of rules about horny-posting & nsfw stuff applying a label like 'horny' will get people defensive if it's something they consider acceptable. and why it got so passionate is i think a lot of people would see themselves in the [extremely broad] context of looking good + posing, so saying/implying that wouldn't fly here (though no-one should post personal photos here) provokes a hard reaction.
also no one disagrees that a reddit-tier comment ad-libbing a sexual fantasy about some person depicted on a post would be unacceptable either, the disagreement there was blaming that on the OP---because gross stuff like that can happen in a perfectly sanitized post about something a nasty person finds hot
Yeah, that's true. I would agree that calling to ban it was what made it such an incendiary issue.
I see what you mean on the second part, but to anyone who feels that way, I'll clarify that in my opinion, by nature of being drawn from imagination means there's an added implication of a voyeuristic relationship to the viewer, that they've been created for the viewer? I don't know, that wording sounds too harsh for what I mean.
I think if the image was of real people it wouldn't have the same implications. It would just be humans posing for a fun picture. They'd look and feel human rather than as a stylised and accentuated version of a human created for consumption.
Consumption by backwater internet forums too, I'd imagine. That has its own set of implications, which relate more to your last point about how it's not really the artists fault. Again, I mostly agree, but the artists general output of content does cater to a certain audience.
was that a struggle session or what? 4 months later we still got some coals glowing! good times
but like nobody disagreed with that, just the idea it deserved to be called 'horny' and the idea similar content shouldn't be allowed. which might not have been your actual suggestion, but on a forum with lots of rules about horny-posting & nsfw stuff applying a label like 'horny' will get people defensive if it's something they consider acceptable. and why it got so passionate is i think a lot of people would see themselves in the [extremely broad] context of looking good + posing, so saying/implying that wouldn't fly here (though no-one should post personal photos here) provokes a hard reaction.
also no one disagrees that a reddit-tier comment ad-libbing a sexual fantasy about some person depicted on a post would be unacceptable either, the disagreement there was blaming that on the OP---because gross stuff like that can happen in a perfectly sanitized post about something a nasty person finds hot
Yeah, that's true. I would agree that calling to ban it was what made it such an incendiary issue.
I see what you mean on the second part, but to anyone who feels that way, I'll clarify that in my opinion, by nature of being drawn from imagination means there's an added implication of a voyeuristic relationship to the viewer, that they've been created for the viewer? I don't know, that wording sounds too harsh for what I mean. I think if the image was of real people it wouldn't have the same implications. It would just be humans posing for a fun picture. They'd look and feel human rather than as a stylised and accentuated version of a human created for consumption.
Consumption by backwater internet forums too, I'd imagine. That has its own set of implications, which relate more to your last point about how it's not really the artists fault. Again, I mostly agree, but the artists general output of content does cater to a certain audience.