Purity nonsense... I don't get it.

Posts: 14 · Views: 665
  • 28144

    Let me say, I flipping love this website. It has to be the best place to get great wallpaper in various resolutions. Been my go to for years! Oddly I thought the forum would be more active... anyway.

    I feel like lately the Purity assignment is just plain out ignored, or people do not agree on what is "work". Per the Rules,

    "SFW Images that are considered safe for work. Contain no violence or sexually suggestive content."

    Maybe I'm just old, but I'm pretty sure "work" is not referring to your work from home computer. I would think it means: A screen that would be in an average work environment, in a public area that is able to viewed by everyone.

    Not only are the following duplicates by two users, but I do not understand how they are SFW, I changed them to Sketchy.

    Leg Fetish (seems to be the artist and in bio says they are "creating lewd art" = Sketchy Same pic, not sure if they are both allowed Stockings

    However, since you have no other parts of the body you cannot verify the age of the drawing, it makes this even more creepy.
    Rule 1 for uploading: Strictly prohibited: "Child pornography (including lolicon/shotacon)."
    I feel like this wallpaper is kind of hitting a loop hole or on the edge of breaking this rule if you cut off the top of their bodies to hide their age. I would think erroring on the side of not being creepy would be the best move.

    I feel like a lot of the wallpapers in SFW should be Sketchy. That sexually suggestive content rule is ignored quiet a bit.

    Sexy? YES / sexually suggestive? Yes! / Safe for work? No! - This is a cool beautiful wallpaper, but this should be Sketchy.

    Anything you look at see something sexy/sexual and think "that is sexy" is not SFW no matter how cool it is.
    Rules for Sketchy: "Images with a subject in underwear, swim-wear, lingerie, latex, etc. but no genitals or (female) nipples showing. Low cut tops/High cut bottoms/Lightly provocative poses."

    Sexy? maybe to someone, sexually suggestive? Nope / Safe for work? Yes Sexy? yes, sexually suggestive? 100% / Safe for work? Absolutely Not

    The Sketchy Section in a whole is just very risque. If seems that if it is not exposed obvious body parts then its ok... However most could be/should be NSFW. Clearly should be NSFW

    The NSFW section... I gave up on that. That is the wild west and anything goes, but the title fits so people should expect wild when they look.

    I just wanted to post here before I went on a Mass Sketchy purity change and get in trouble. I wanted to see what the admin, mods, and community thought.

  • 28145

    Like your name is saying you should know that on most examples you gave us you are wrong. And also that mistakes happens sometimes too cause we are humans here. Thanx

  • 28146

    I'm lost... what are you saying? They should just NOT change anything and leave it alone since thier examples are wrong?

  • 28165

    I've come to find that this is one of the times in life where you just have to look at what you are doing and ask yourself:

    "WTF am I doing this for??!?!?"

    Clearly no one on the staff really cares that much, so why am I going to invest my time? I'll just enjoy this site for the amazing wallpapers it has and ignore everything else. Thanks for giving me some time back in my life Wallhaven.

  • 28166

    This is quite confusing to read. If you find wallpapers that are flagged incorrectly feel free to fix them. That's why you have that option, it's a community effort. You can help keep things tidy for the benefit of everybody else. If you don't think it's worth your time, well, then don't. No hard feelings.

  • 28167

    Gandalf said:

    This is quite confusing to read. If you find wallpapers that are flagged incorrectly feel free to fix them. That's why you have that option, it's a community effort. You can help keep things tidy for the benefit of everybody else. If you don't think it's worth your time, well, then don't. No hard feelings.

    I am sorry if this coming across as confusing. My response was to what kejsirajbek said, "Like your name is saying you should know that on most examples you gave us you are wrong."

    I don't want to waste my time trying to help community if how I read the form rules are wrong. Then I'll get in trouble for changing things that I shouldn't. This is Sketchy to me and I would change it as such

    The staff also locks some purity How is this NOT sketchy... A school aged girl laying on her desk showing thigh... if that is your kink (which is a sexual thing, FINE, but it is not 100% NOT safe for work..

    I'm saying I was willing to take time out of my life to try and help the community. But if I can get in trouble for doing so, then I won't do it. I'll just ignore it all and enjoy the great content here.

  • 28202

    Safetyadmin

    I get what you're saying and I agree that some of these should 100% be marked as nsfw or sketchy but generally speaking it seems like you think any amount of skin showing shouldn't be allowed but like, even in a workplace some amount of skin might be showing.

  • 28208

    @TheFalseFury said:

    Safetyadmin

    I get what you're saying and I agree that some of these should 100% be marked as nsfw or sketchy but generally speaking it seems like you think any amount of skin showing shouldn't be allowed but like, even in a workplace some amount of skin might be showing.

    Nah, its the kind of skin showing, what is that skin suggesting. This is legs, tight clothing, but the pose and face is not suggestive I would say this is SFW, might get you some looks, but still SFW in my book.

    SFW SFW - you might get some double takes Still SFW

    SFW but JUST barely

    Not SFW Not SFW and no skin at all. This is a fetish and in such is instantly sketchy. This on an office computer would get reported to HR

  • 28209

    Safetyadmin said:

    @TheFalseFury said:

    Safetyadmin

    I get what you're saying and I agree that some of these should 100% be marked as nsfw or sketchy but generally speaking it seems like you think any amount of skin showing shouldn't be allowed but like, even in a workplace some amount of skin might be showing.

    Nah, its the kind of skin showing, what is that skin suggesting. This is legs, tight clothing, but the pose and face is not suggestive I would say this is SFW, might get you some looks, but still SFW in my book.

    SFW SFW - you might get some double takes Still SFW

    SFW but JUST barely

    Not SFW Not SFW and no skin at all. This is a fetish and in such is instantly sketchy. This on an office computer would get reported to HR

    See I would've called the "Still SFW" one worse than the "Just Barely" or at the very least the same level.

    As for the last two. I get you. Tbh I think any of these could get you reported in an office environment. People are weird. But the Tatsumaki one (First one) looks like a child and only someone who knows the source material would not think of it that way.

  • 28212

    I just don't want to get in trouble for changing too much stuff that people don't agree with me on. At the same time, its kind of like why should I even care. It does not hurt anything to be wrong lol.

  • 28220

    yeah this shit is real. i got a 1 month banned due to this stupid purity.

  • 28241

    I was under the impression "Safe for Work" in this day and age was an antiquated figure of speech from the 90's, and that 99% of most wallpapers on this website would not be authorized in an office environment in 2022. Especially since most companies and office environments admin-lock their work computers so that you can't set a custom wallpaper in the first place.

    To the best of my understanding the new, modern, contemporary definition of the purity levels would simply be:

    SFW - No Nudity Sketchy - Almost Nudity NSFW - Nudity

    I'm sure there's still a few workplaces that allow their employees to set custom desktop backgrounds, but I'm also willing to bet those same workplaces have extremely draconian standards that would still disqualify the vast majority of all wallpapers that aren't landscapes or pictures of cats (Further demonstrating that the original definition of SFW/NSFW has evolved over the span of three decades.).

    (Edited for spelling)

    Last updated
  • 28245

    GenreLeap said:

    I was under the impression "Safe for Work" in this day and age was an antiquated figure of speech from the 90's, and that 99% of most wallpapers on this website would not be authorized in an office environment in 2022. Especially since most companies and office environments admin-lock their work computers so that you can't set a custom wallpaper in the first place.

    To the best of my understanding the new, modern, contemporary definition of the purity levels would simply be:

    SFW - No Nudity Sketchy - Almost Nudity NSFW - Nudity

    I'm sure there's still a few workplaces that allow their employees to set custom desktop backgrounds, but I'm also willing to bet those same workplaces have extremely draconian standards that would still disqualify the vast majority of all wallpapers that aren't landscapes or pictures of cats (Further demonstrating that the original definition of SFW/NSFW has evolved over the span of three decades.).

    (Edited for spelling)

    I agree with your classification but would change nudity to sexual content A long time ago i used on my work desktop the dancing zodiac project from deviantart (with the exception of scorpio picture) and even having a bit of nudity because of the dancers poses, it was sfw.

  • 28246

    Anastergun

    I think this further illustrates how the definition is all over the place. I once had a wallpaper of the Wild Hunt of Odin https://wallhaven.cc/w/dgdljl as my wallpaper background, which clearly does not contain sexual content, and I still had a sergeant or two say "Ditch the boobs before someone reports us to EO." So in some workplaces, even classical painting nudity is no-go.

Message