Broken rule (overly sexual)

Posts: 125 · Views: 5795
  • 20183

    I have an additional question concerning this rule.

    The rule says that wallpapers cannot depict actual sexual intercourse between two people. For the most part this seems intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. Just the other day someone posted an extremely graphic spread of an underage hentai nekomimi getting railed and that thing was reported before I even saw it. But then you get into the weird stuff, like nude female models licking each other.

    In my old pre-launch account (New account with the new site for a fresh start and all) I got yelled at for reporting wallpapers that depicted naked women licking each other's nipples and bodies and in the region of their genitals. I was banned from reporting wallpapers for "mis-using the feature." So does that mean sexual intercourse only applies to penis-in-orifice sex? Are lesbian body-lickers exempt? Was I improperly penalized? I need to know so I can avoid reporting something in the future that will cause a repeat.

    Here's some examples of the kind of content I'm referencing: https://wallhaven.cc/w/969m2x https://wallhaven.cc/w/13gk19

  • 20185

    why do you people upload porn here like at all... :D if you want to jerk off go watch some porn or download pics from some porn site... :D why do we need this here at all? :D except for the ones that meant to be some form of art involving nudity...

    good thing this is hardly tolerated here, I don't want this site to be eaten by prews who newer got laid, and all they do is spreading they fetishes all over the internet while hiding behind some colorful pony "avatar" I mean it always these ones that have a pony in their avatar is this cult of some sort ? :D

    Edit: I don't mean of think that op is the one here.

  • 20206

    SymbioteCoyote

    I just looked through those and almost all of them have already been reported. The staff are just really busy and have a large backlog of reports to sift through.

  • 20208

    Roughly 14k broken rule reports and only a handful of people can delete wallpapers. They'll be dealt with in due time, or AA will lose his mind and nuke them. Win win either way.

  • 20213

    Where is the line being drawn on this rule? [kw3oxq] obviously breaks it [j5y325] but does this?

  • 20269

    @RazorBlack

    Based on what I've seen get deleted they both wouldn't fly as they are both just high-resolution stills from porn shoots.

    That's just my opinion however it is the vibe I'm getting.

  • 20273

    The simple fact of the matter is this, the website already has a built in function for separating SFW and NSFW wallpapers, and even goes the extra step to add a 'Sketchy' listing for the monumental grey area between SFW/NSFW, something most sites do not, and will not ever do.

    These features alone render any need for removal of 'overly sexual' images not only pointless but utterly redundant. If the concern is that all the nudity people may be exposed to if they make an account, verify the account, and then enable NSFW, even needing to change their ccount settings from default values in order to avoid having to re-enable NSFW content with every subsequent login, unfounded, and quite frankly ridiculous.

    If people are believing this site is 'losing value' as a wallpaper hosting service because of the nudity, then just disable it's ability to be shown to you, don't arbitrarily try to force your views on others.

    ...Just sayin'.

  • 20282

    NukerMunky said:

    The simple fact of the matter is this, the website already has a built in function for separating SFW and NSFW wallpapers, and even goes the extra step to add a 'Sketchy' listing for the monumental grey area between SFW/NSFW, something most sites do not, and will not ever do.

    These features alone render any need for removal of 'overly sexual' images not only pointless but utterly redundant. If the concern is that all the nudity people may be exposed to if they make an account, verify the account, and then enable NSFW, even needing to change their ccount settings from default values in order to avoid having to re-enable NSFW content with every subsequent login, unfounded, and quite frankly ridiculous.

    If people are believing this site is 'losing value' as a wallpaper hosting service because of the nudity, then just disable it's ability to be shown to you, don't arbitrarily try to force your views on others.

    ...Just sayin'.

    You're missing the important part how broad "NSFW" is. The site was slowly reaching the point where the obviously porn pictures became nearly inevitable if you had NSFW enabled. I might like wallpapers with tags like "lingerie", "bed" or "wet body" which do leave a fair chance they will be NSFW, but then you have no way of filtering out the pretty/classy ones from the full-on porn ones with spread legs and all.

    Practically speaking, the only solution I would see to that is... a fourth category. But then you reach the common sense point: why do you need a "porn" category on a wallpaper website?

    It's pretty simple and logical when you break it down to practical matters.

  • 20298

    I want to make an appeal. I'm very confused. Can someone please explain why these 3 wallpapers have been deleted: ?

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/vgd5v5 https://wallhaven.cc/w/dgoovg https://wallhaven.cc/w/ey633l

    When these 3, uploaded recently, are standing just fine:

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/5wmlw5 https://wallhaven.cc/w/2e3p26 https://wallhaven.cc/w/39rx2y

    I really can't understand this rule. In the wallpapers I uploaded the genitals are barely visible, with a lot of shadow; artistic nudity; not a close-up (as stated in the rule). While in the 3 wallpapers that still exist they are much more visible and the photos are from a porn photo shoot.

    Also, all of these wallpapers have been uploaded recently, so you can't say they are old and haven't gotten to delete them yet.

    I really don't understand what's going on.

    Edit: they seem to have been deleted now; I will try to adjust my uploads accordingly the best way I can.

    Last updated
  • 20301

    lumberjacck said:

    I want to make an appeal. I'm very confused. Can someone please explain why these 3 wallpapers have been deleted: ?

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/vgd5v5 https://wallhaven.cc/w/dgoovg https://wallhaven.cc/w/ey633l

    When these 3, uploaded recently, are standing just fine:

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/5wmlw5 https://wallhaven.cc/w/2e3p26 https://wallhaven.cc/w/39rx2y

    I really can't understand this rule. In the wallpapers I uploaded the genitals are barely visible, with a lot of shadow; artistic nudity; not a close-up (as stated in the rule). While in the 3 wallpapers that still exist they are much more visible and the photos are from a porn photo shoot.

    Also, all of these wallpapers have been uploaded recently, so you can't say they are old and haven't gotten to delete them yet.

    I really don't understand what's going on.

    Edit: they seem to have been deleted now; I will try to adjust my uploads accordingly the best way I can.

    I uploaded these "wallpapers" because I believe they would not fit the rule, since they do not focus on the genitals or are not very sexually suggestive, they are just nudity. Mostly this: wall

    I think this was mistakenly deleted: wall

  • 20302

    MrDraper said:

    lumberjacck said:

    I want to make an appeal. I'm very confused. Can someone please explain why these 3 wallpapers have been deleted: ?

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/vgd5v5 https://wallhaven.cc/w/dgoovg https://wallhaven.cc/w/ey633l

    When these 3, uploaded recently, are standing just fine:

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/5wmlw5 https://wallhaven.cc/w/2e3p26 https://wallhaven.cc/w/39rx2y

    I really can't understand this rule. In the wallpapers I uploaded the genitals are barely visible, with a lot of shadow; artistic nudity; not a close-up (as stated in the rule). While in the 3 wallpapers that still exist they are much more visible and the photos are from a porn photo shoot.

    Also, all of these wallpapers have been uploaded recently, so you can't say they are old and haven't gotten to delete them yet.

    I really don't understand what's going on.

    Edit: they seem to have been deleted now; I will try to adjust my uploads accordingly the best way I can.

    I uploaded these "wallpapers" because I believe they would not fit the rule, since they do not focus on the genitals or are not very sexually suggestive, they are just nudity. Mostly this: wall

    I think this was mistakenly deleted: wall

    I agree. All of these (mine and yours) are far from "overly sexual", as there is no emphasis on the genitals. But then again, this is very subjective and best left to the admins to decide, I guess...

  • 20303

    I agree. All of these (mine and yours) are far from "overly sexual", as there is no emphasis on the genitals. But then again, this is very subjective and best left to the admins to decide, I guess...

    For sure. If all the wallpapers like these are deleted, then it's best expand the rule, stating that any content that shows the genitals won't be tolerated.

    Last updated
  • 20316

    AksumkA said:

    The only difference is we didn't get around to deleting those yet (notice how they've already been reported).

    I'm defining 'overly sexual' as any images that have an emphasis or focus on genitals. The rule is vague and will have a lot of 'gut' reactions in when it gets enforced. It's not that walls containing them (genitals) are banned, but I am going to be more strict about what is considered acceptable.

    Wallhaven isn't supposed to be a porn site. If you're looking for that type of content, look elsewhere.

    It's really a stupid change when you think about it. The NSFW filter exists for this reason.

  • 20318

    This rule is stupid. You can remove my account and all uploads then, will be easier for you.

  • 20321

    Hmm.... My stand point is that NSFW button is for that and it doesn't matter what kind of level of nudity the picture has. If it is't a clearly porn picture with some kind watermarks on it then it's different matter. Also this whole thing with vague genitals is way too... well everyone has a different opinion.

  • 20323

    All I'm going to say is that Tumblr did a similar thing, and went from a billion dollar company to being sold for less than $3 million

  • 20328

    I agree with the new rule in the sense that lately the "Latest" page was flooded with tasteless porn NSFW photos and gave the site a bad image. But this is different from artistic nudity, genitals or not, and I don't know why that is being put in the same category as porn, when it clearly isn't.

  • 20339

    People who argue for keeping the sexually very explicit pictures miss one pretty obvious point. This site is meant to be an online repository for wallpapers, as in display device backgrounds.

    Does any one of you honestly put a picture of an exposed vulva as your display background on any of your devices? I highly doubt that. Pictures not even porn addicts would use as anything else than a visual aid for self-pleasuring have honestly no place on this site.

  • 20341

    I am all for the new rule! NSFW doesn't mean porn, but only that is not suitable for public environments. Apart form that NSFW can be anything or nothing and is what the site allows and wants. Explicit porn on a wallpaper site looks nothing but "cheap". There are literally 5 billion porn sites out there, probably more, and you can find high rez pics on them, if you want to add those as your background.

    I like tasteful, artistic, sensual and maybe erotic nudity, if it's done good and the main focus is the image and the object (model) itself.

    Another things that comes with those porn pics: They usually are getting mass uploaded in a series. There's nearly no other kind/ category of image, where you can find that many image series, as with porn pics. It has nothing to do with quality but is all about quantity. If it would be one pic here and there, but seeing 10 pics of the same model spreading her legs, sometimes in nearly the same position... Well, I for myself can live without those.

  • 20343

    GLXY Asagrim If you read the thread most of us are not arguing that stuff like this needs to stay [p2ry5j] we're arguing about the line. This rule is so vague and enforced in a half assed manner. When the focus of the photo is obviously the genitalia like [n61el7] [4llo9y] [1j7rq1] the rule makes sense, but it makes no sense when they enforce it on images like

    NSFWYou need to be logged in to view this wallpaper.
    NSFWYou need to be logged in to view this wallpaper.
    [mdq51k]

    *post edited for formatting

    Last updated
  • 20347

    @RazorBlack

    I do not see any difference whatsoever between picture 3 and 6. Just because their hips are at a slightly different angle doesn't change the fact that the purpose of both pictures is to present the vulva. Sorry but as far as my oh-so subjective judgement is concerned neither of these are wallpapers, and I wouldn't use either of them despite the fact that both my age and relationship status would permit me to do so without upsetting anyone. These are fap material, plain and simple, and this site is not a place to have them at. This is not my attempt at discussing the morality of porn, I've got terabytes of that stuff, but I've got them at places where they belong, this site should not be among my sources.

    Even this technically clothed picture is more explicit than a "subtle" nude picture, just because of the manner she's forming a cleft with her underwear: [835g7k]

    ... and another picture of the same photo shoot I used to use as a further example of an overly explicit clothed picture got taken down since, so someone other than me must have reported and a third person must have removed it who all share the same opinion about such things not belonging here: [721734]

    So you see, even clothed pictures can be overly sexual, just because of their sexual overtness, then why are we arguing about different levels of explicitness between nude pictures? It is impossible to objectively define and differentiate sexual innuendo between two nude pictures in a world where people can honestly utter clichés like "just because she's dressed like a slut, doesn't mean she's asking for it" with a straight face when talking about clothed women. This rule will stay subjective no matter how detailed your description of the rule will be.

  • 20349

    Asagrim I don't think it's plain and simple. If you don't use those pictures on your wallpaper, it is your taste. I am using one of those for my wallpaper, and I don't fap on it. I have my own taste of fap material.

    I can bear with changing rules and restricting some pictures for my respect to the admins, despite of my disappointment of the decision of restricting them. However, I don't really agree with the word "overly sexual". It can be interpreted differently by person or culture. For the person from quite conservative culture, all the pictures in NSFW could be overly sexual.

    Personally, even the borders between SFW, Sketchy, and NSFW are not quite obvious sometimes. Now "overly sexual"?

Message