Broken rule (overly sexual)

Posts: 136 · Views: 6915
  • 24632

    "Wallhaven" rules have we changed ?

    [l385xl] [j3xmpm] [g7po63] [v9qwjl] [m93xlm] [o35kwp] [j3x6rp]

  • 24844

    elcosomalo said:

    Guys/Girls (mostly guys), if you want porn, go somewhere else... I mean, this is the internet it is more difficult to find a non porn site that finding a porn one.

    I swear I just don't understand people's mind sometimes.. they seem to have this fixed idea to put furry/ponies/porn/sexy anime stuff everywhere on the WWW and try to force it by searching a grey area on the sites rules. It's like chat groups, there's always someone sharing gross/porn/violent videos and images. What do you want? attention? you can consume that by yourself, why the urge to show it to others?

    Stop being stupid people... you have literally a million sites where to share that content.

    And no, I'm not being a moral sargent, I just want to have a good quality, non porn site to download good wallpapers for my PC. BTW, if you put nude or sexy girls/guys as wallpapers on your computers, you should think about your behavior; that is simply not normal.

    lol I like the contradiction "not a moral sargent" but if anyone puts nude or sexy girls/guyz as wallpapers it's not normal .....

    I lived on a boat for years, closed, tight spaces, need to wash yourself in the sea because need to save on clear water .... you tend to let loose a little, therefore nudity is no big deal for me, seeing your genitals ? meh what's the big deal ?

    I know everyone doesn't have the same point of view as I do, but I liked the clearer rules of before : "no sexual act" that made much more sense to me also I liked wallhaven (& its predecessor wallbase) as it was before (except for the anime section of wallbase that was wild)

    Personnally I find plenty of distasteful pictures that fit the new criterias and are on wallhaven right now, but are just like : pixelated, low quality,... a poor photographer job...

    I often look beyond the subject being photographed, at how it's presented, how it's photographed, if it's over saturated or not, if you can actually see the skin pores....

    what I liked in the old wallhaven rules, is that it was overall a quality website with plenty of quality nudes nowadays I come here less often, and "other porn sites", some say ? found none with wallhaven like quality & strict standards (example: deviantart has never been a website I'm interested in, neither in it's "old" incarnations nor its "new" incarnations) but either way it is what it is.

    Added 13 minutes after

    one more :

    NSFWYou need to be logged in to view this wallpaper.

    for me this is porn/sexual in nature despite the fact there is no genitals the woman has a hazy look the tongue is out, licking a digit

    Last updated
  • 24845

    whismerhill said:

    elcosomalo said:

    Guys/Girls (mostly guys), if you want porn, go somewhere else... I mean, this is the internet it is more difficult to find a non porn site that finding a porn one.

    I swear I just don't understand people's mind sometimes.. they seem to have this fixed idea to put furry/ponies/porn/sexy anime stuff everywhere on the WWW and try to force it by searching a grey area on the sites rules. It's like chat groups, there's always someone sharing gross/porn/violent videos and images. What do you want? attention? you can consume that by yourself, why the urge to show it to others?

    Stop being stupid people... you have literally a million sites where to share that content.

    And no, I'm not being a moral sargent, I just want to have a good quality, non porn site to download good wallpapers for my PC. BTW, if you put nude or sexy girls/guys as wallpapers on your computers, you should think about your behavior; that is simply not normal.

    lol I like the contradiction "not a moral sargent" but if anyone puts nude or sexy girls/guyz as wallpapers it's not normal .....

    I lived on a boat for years, closed, tight spaces, need to wash yourself in the sea because need to save on clear water .... you tend to let loose a little, therefore nudity is no big deal for me, seeing your genitals ? meh what's the big deal ?

    I know everyone doesn't have the same point of view as I do, but I liked the clearer rules of before : "no sexual act" that made much more sense to me also I liked wallhaven (& its predecessor wallbase) as it was before (except for the anime section of wallbase that was wild)

    Personnally I find plenty of distasteful pictures that fit the new criterias and are on wallhaven right now, but are just like : pixelated, low quality,... a poor photographer job...

    I often look beyond the subject being photographed, at how it's presented, how it's photographed, if it's over saturated or not, if you can actually see the skin pores....

    what I liked in the old wallhaven rules, is that it was overall a quality website with plenty of quality nudes nowadays I come here less often, and "other porn sites", some say ? found none with wallhaven like quality & strict standards (example: deviantart has never been a website I'm interested in, neither in it's "old" incarnations nor its "new" incarnations) but either way it is what it is.

    Added 13 minutes after

    one more :

    NSFWYou need to be logged in to view this wallpaper.

    for me this is porn/sexual in nature despite the fact there is no genitals the woman has a hazy look the tongue is out, licking a digit

    No, I think it's cute and awesome. There is no way this is "oversexual" I don't care about stupid talks, bla bla bla. NOTHING IS "OVERLY SEXUAL"

    Last updated
  • 24852

    Of the wallpapers on this site that is one of the least disturbing ones I've seen. When it comes to rule violations that one is perfectly fine and doesn't cross any lines that many other walls that eventually end up being deleted cross.

  • 24853

    404011xz said:

    Of the wallpapers on this site that is one of the least disturbing ones I've seen. When it comes to rule violations that one is perfectly fine and doesn't cross any lines that many other walls that eventually end up being deleted cross.

    Last updated
  • 24867

    Look, you guyz misunderstood "for me this is porn/sexual in nature despite the fact there is no genitals"

    this is what I said and it didn't mean "this breaks the rules & should be banned" I never meant anything like this I also never said this picture was disturbing in any way. IF a website disturbs me in some way I either -filter out the content that I can IF I can -stop visiting the website it has never been the case for wallbase

    how should I say it ?.... you think this picture is "cute and awesome" ? well then I think this picture is awesome, the woman is cute, her expression is sexual in nature & it totally gets my motor going, so to speak or to say it yet another way, if a woman did exactly that to my digit, I'm not sure how long before I pick her up to bring her to the backroom or something (with her agreement of course)

    now again, I never intended to say this breaks the "overly sexual" rule I was pointing out that the new rules don't make much sense to me, but again it's not my website to run, and probably nobody cares what I think of them.

  • 24868

    Hehe, in cyberpunk, she actually takes you to the backroom (no need of her agreement) BTW you're right, many of uploaders not even adding a tags properly, and there are so many "overly sexual" walls are uploaded by many users, nobody reading the rules properly, everybody uploading "oversexual" trash of walls, especially new users, C'mon man... just chill. Nobody cares what you think or what I think. See? This wall is reported 3 weeks ago and they don't even deleting it yet. [g7w733]

    Last updated
  • 24872

    Is this one really NSFW?

    https://whvn.cc/q67xl7

    This as NSFW to me sounds extremely conservative. If that's NSFW, then maybe women should always be wearing heavy, thick coats, just in case, any suggestion that they also have nipples apparently is indecent.

  • 24874

    kevinmccallister said:

    Is this one really NSFW?

    https://whvn.cc/q67xl7

    This as NSFW to me sounds extremely conservative. If that's NSFW, then maybe women should always be wearing heavy, thick coats, just in case, any suggestion that they also have nipples apparently is indecent.

    Yeah, it is NSFW see the "nipple through clothing" clearly visible... I think.

  • 24878

    I'd think it would be more of the case when it's something more clearly see-through, like a wet-t-shirt, or at least a more clearly "sexual" or nipple-focused composition of the whole picture, rather than implicitly the declaration that lots of women walk around indecently just by the fact of being women. With non-nude/non-completely-transparent but "sexy" pictures being at most "sketchy." I find hard to understand why this is NSFW and not all, virtually all picture with a woman in a bikini, regardless of pose and composition.

Message