This thread was locked on 2013-07-11 19:43:29
Forums > General Industry > What is 18+ anyway??

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

I was recently given some feedback that I missed a few "Mature" censorships in my profile.   OK....fair enough, when in doubt, play it safe. 

Except that I saw this yesterday.....
http://espn.go.com/espn/photos/gallery/ … n-magazine 

And this on the shelf at the bookstores...
http://cdn.theblemish.com/images/2011/0 … 00x677.jpg

....and THIS
http://img2.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/e … hzezl4.jpg

....and this
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-co … uit-19.jpg 

.....and this
http://s1165.photobucket.com/user/411ma … 3.jpg.html 

....and this
http://www.nudes-girls.com/wp-content/u … -hq-hd.jpg 

So....what is 18+?   Because clearly, according to our society, these images are NOT....they are given our collective nod of approval as acceptable for minors. 

So if a woman is presented in a sexual somewhat derogatory way, but covered up with mesh, or paint, or see through things that enhance the imaginings of what is underneath.....that is ok, cause it's not 18+?

But if you try to present a woman from an artistic way, with an interest in grace and beauty (instead of sexualized commercialism) BUT happen to show a butt crack or a nipple in a non-sexual way.....that is an 18+ "mature" image because what....it's too sexual??

Somebody help me out here.....  I'm confused. 

What makes an image "18+"....a nipple?  a butt?? 

Please discuss.

Jul 11 13 12:28 pm Link

Photographer

udor

Posts: 23395

New York, New York, US

Eyesso wrote:
I was recently given some feedback that I missed a few "Mature" censorships in my profile.   OK....fair enough, when in doubt, play it safe. 

Except that I saw this yesterday.....


So....what is 18+?   Because clearly, according to our society, these images are NOT....they are given our collective nod of approval as acceptable for minors. 

Somebody help me out here.....  I'm confused. 

What makes an image "18+"....a nipple?  a butt?? 

Please discuss.

There is really not much to discuss in terms of MM... it is a private enterprise with it's own rules on what is acceptable for this community.

Those rules can be found in the TOS and FAQ's of MM.

Another example... I did a body painting project with Andy Golub on Time Square, with the model being topless... no problems... totally legal... then we went into the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and, although legal on the street, the model was forced to cover up... Met rules vs. street rules... same thing.

Btw., that scenario led to the picture of Trish flashing Chuck Close...  smile

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120930/06/5068487db8268.jpg

Jul 11 13 12:53 pm Link

Model

JoJo

Posts: 25650

Clearwater, Florida, US

On Model Mayhem, these are the M/18+ image rules
http://www.modelmayhem.com/help/rules/images

Jul 11 13 12:54 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

OH....I'm familiar with nipples and butt skin bringing about the destruction of our society....definitely.    wink

I was more interested in trying to highlight the inconsistency. 

But good point about the body painting....street vs. MET.

Jul 11 13 12:58 pm Link

Photographer

Kent Art Photography

Posts: 3122

Ashford, England, United Kingdom

The MM 18+ rules seem to be pretty clear, but they're open to interpretation by the Mods and that interpretation varies from Mod to Mod, as evidenced in the competitions when JoJo goes on holiday.

I propose that JoJo be the arbiter of all things 18+, she applies the rules fairly and uniformly.

Jul 11 13 02:17 pm Link

Photographer

R Michael Walker

Posts: 11987

Costa Mesa, California, US

On MM it's right here:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/help/rules/images

VERY permissive by most networking sites' standards..like Facebook.. In the real world it varies by the locality. NYC is more permissive than Cincinnati, OH which is more permissive than say Selma Alabama. And the tire shot you listed would never be on Display in Walmart.

Jul 11 13 02:25 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 37171

Columbus, Ohio, US

Eyesso wrote:
What is 18+ anyway??

Whatever MM says it is. Sometimes it changes.

Jul 11 13 02:31 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

"bare bottoms....thongs or not"

"see through or semi-see through clothing, or paint"

"depiction of blood"

That's stuff I see all the time on here.   Not flagged as 18+.

Jul 11 13 02:38 pm Link

Photographer

ms-photo

Posts: 537

Portland, Oregon, US

The rules say it's about keeping MM worksafe when needed.

None of those example images you posted would really be considered worksafe either.

Jul 11 13 02:39 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4387

Asheville, North Carolina, US

The MM designation of 18+ is really not much more than a designation for a filter which can be turned on, or off by anyone viewing images when signed in. A user controlled and switchable filter seems to me to be a fairly good way of dealing with the problem of the website being used by a diverse population in a wide variety of settings. That the guidelines for the designation don't address issues such as taste, aesthetics or theories regarding uplifting or degrading images seems to me to also be a plus.

If I were going to argue that MM had a capricious and contradictory set of rules that were overly burdensome, out of step with social norms, and logically unsupportable, I'd concentrate on what material they ban from the site or their "no adult networking" rule in contrast with material they do allow on site.

Jul 11 13 02:53 pm Link

Photographer

Daniel Chase

Posts: 643

San Francisco, California, US

I have had one avatar pulled and one photo pulled from a contest for to much butt crack. I see more butt crack with girls in bikinis on the beach or following a girl on the back of a sport bike on the street. I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.

Jul 11 13 03:05 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

ms-photo wrote:
The rules say it's about keeping MM worksafe when needed.

None of those example images you posted would really be considered worksafe either.

Right...and perhaps it could be argued that MM is "more responsible" when it comes to protecting the innocent eyes of mankind.  But I think it has more to do with the credit card's rules on merchant accounts than keeping people safe at work.  I don't go onto MM at work because a large portion of the stuff not listed as "mature" would still be considered NOT "worksafe", so what are we protecting?

Jul 11 13 05:06 pm Link

Photographer

GER Photography

Posts: 8397

Imperial, California, US

Sometimes the nipple police will get out their magnifying glasses and mark a pic you've used for months as M!! PITA!!

Jul 11 13 05:11 pm Link

Photographer

SCT Photo

Posts: 37

Long Beach, California, US

GER Photography wrote:
Sometimes the nipple police will get out their magnifying glasses and mark a pic you've used for months as M!! PITA!!

Ha ha ha! Really? Glad I haven't experienced that here. Then again, I'm rarely on here.

Jul 11 13 05:18 pm Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 8803

Olney, Maryland, US

Eyesso wrote:
What is 18+ anyway??

Cherrystone wrote:
Whatever MM says it is. Sometimes it changes.

18+ on MM is specific to MM only.  Rules from Facebook, NYC or MET do not apply to MM.  Just like dress codes at your place of employment are independent of any other organization.

Eyesso wrote:
"bare bottoms....thongs or not"
"see through or semi-see through clothing, or paint"
"depiction of blood"

That's stuff I see all the time on here.   Not flagged as 18+.

The MODs cannot view millions of images.  They depend on you to report the offending images.  There is a link at the upper right hand corner of every image for this purpose.

Jul 11 13 05:19 pm Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 8803

Olney, Maryland, US

GER Photography wrote:
Sometimes the nipple police will get out their magnifying glasses and mark a pic you've used for months as M!! PITA!!

Someone reported you.  This also happens on Facebook, Crag's List, etc.

Jul 11 13 05:21 pm Link

Photographer

salvatori.

Posts: 4021

Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, US

IMHO, the 18+ rules on MM have more arbitrary bullshit in them than Texas has bulls.

Jul 11 13 05:29 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

Mark Salo wrote:
The MODs cannot view millions of images.  They depend on you to report the offending images.  There is a link at the upper right hand corner of every image for this purpose.

Didn't they do that in pre-war germany?

I'm not the censor police....I don't care if skin shows, I'm not offended.  I just think it's silly when we censor tastefully done ART but then allow tasteless images that technically "follow the rules"

Can I report images that are CHEEZY to the point of being offensive to me?  smile

Jul 11 13 05:47 pm Link

Photographer

DOUGLASFOTOS

Posts: 9270

Los Angeles, California, US

Kent Art Photography wrote:
The MM 18+ rules seem to be pretty clear, but they're open to interpretation by the Mods and that interpretation varies from Mod to Mod, as evidenced in the competitions when JoJo goes on holiday.

I propose that JoJo be the arbiter of all things 18+, she applies the rules fairly and uniformly.

This..JoJo has her act together.

Jul 11 13 05:49 pm Link

Photographer

Rob Photosby

Posts: 3578

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Eyesso wrote:
I was recently given some feedback that I missed a few "Mature" censorships in my profile.   OK....fair enough, when in doubt, play it safe. 

Except that I saw this yesterday.....
http://espn.go.com/espn/photos/gallery/ … n-magazine 

And this on the shelf at the bookstores...
http://cdn.theblemish.com/images/2011/0 … 00x677.jpg

....and THIS
http://img2.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/e … hzezl4.jpg

....and this
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-co … uit-19.jpg 

.....and this
http://s1165.photobucket.com/user/411ma … 3.jpg.html 

....and this
http://www.nudes-girls.com/wp-content/u … -hq-hd.jpg 

So....what is 18+?   Because clearly, according to our society, these images are NOT....they are given our collective nod of approval as acceptable for minors.

With the exception of your third link (which will not open for me), none of the images that you linked to would be classed as 18+ on MM.

Jul 11 13 05:56 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

Post hidden on Jul 11, 2013 06:33 pm
Reason: 18+ Images

Jul 11 13 06:01 pm Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 8803

Olney, Maryland, US

Mark Salo wrote:
The MODs cannot view millions of images.  They depend on you to report the offending images.  There is a link at the upper right hand corner of every image for this purpose.

Eyesso wrote:
Didn't they do that in pre-war germany?

I'm not the censor police....I don't care if skin shows, I'm not offended.  I just think it's silly when we censor tastefully done ART but then allow tasteless images that technically "follow the rules"

Can I report images that are CHEEZY to the point of being offensive to me?  smile

So then why are you complaining?

Jul 11 13 06:08 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

natural beauties of qld wrote:
With the exception of your third link (which will not open for me), none of the images that you linked to would be classed as 18+ on MM.

Here, let me copy/paste the applicable rules. 

"female nipple or areola"   (because male nipples are asexual, but females are?)

"bare buttocks (thong or not)"  (because butt cracks are too decedent?)

"see-through or semi-transparent clothing or body paint"  (for the imagineers)


I'm not saying Model Mayhem rules apply outside of Model Mayhem.  I'm just saying that doesn't quite break the rules in a large variety of tantalizing ways, while censoring stuff that is actually GOOD and positive expressions of the human form, because it shows a nipple or a butt crack.   

What are we gaining? 

I'm sure there is a technical name for this "effect" where imbalance is created by trying to maintain balance.  But I don't know the name.  Any philosophers in here?

Jul 11 13 06:15 pm Link

Photographer

AMCphotography2

Posts: 475

Los Angeles, California, US

Ya I have no idea. I had an avatar flagged as "M" and I contacted a Mod, and some other Mod removed the "M" rating. Some folks on MM are more prudish than others.

Jul 11 13 06:18 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

Mark Salo wrote:
So then why are you complaining?

I'm not complaining, really....  I'm juxtapositioning a dichotomy because I think it's a topic and a blatant Americanism worth pulling our minds away from.  The idea that the parts equal the sum is erroneous.   

Here's what my "rules" would look like....

"This is not a porn site, so nothing overtly sexual, nothing derogatory....OK?  If you want that, go to Google."

Jul 11 13 06:22 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

Look how this magical 10 pixel patch turns this image from an "18+" image into something you can hang up in your babies room.  No harm, no foul. 

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/avatars/2/2/3/5/1/4/2/51dec7b500209_m.jpg
(an AVATAR I just came across)

You know....for a second I thought she might be naked.  But as it turns out she's all covered up....whew....I might have been offended! 

What are we really hiding?   or....more collectively, what are we hiding FROM?

Jul 11 13 06:35 pm Link

Photographer

dgold

Posts: 10281

North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US

Cherrystone wrote:

Whatever MM says it is. Sometimes it changes.

Now that about sums it up...
Nothing within a dictatorship makes sense, nor is fair or evenly distributed.
So, fuhghettaboutit and do your thing with the so-called rules and it will be what it will be interpreted without rhyme nor reason.

And JoJo can see through panties and bras if she sees fit to call you out.
Art be damned.

Jul 11 13 06:42 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

"bare buttocks (thong or not)" 

Depending how you want to interpret that, a couple of JoJo's images are missing an "M"....just sayin.   Wait....did I just become police??   Dangit!!  smile

I'm such a product of programming now.

Jul 11 13 06:46 pm Link

Photographer

Stanley L Moore

Posts: 1681

Houston, Texas, US

Kent Art Photography wrote:
The MM 18+ rules seem to be pretty clear, but they're open to interpretation by the Mods and that interpretation varies from Mod to Mod, as evidenced in the competitions when JoJo goes on holiday.

I propose that JoJo be the arbiter of all things 18+, she applies the rules fairly and uniformly.

No one but the Pope is infallible. I had an image in the Men's POTD that came in second a few months back. I re-entered in later and she Dqd it. I got to admit it WAS borderline. And she explained because it was borderline sometimes it flls on this side of the line and sometimes on the other. She's got a hard job and does it quite well. I would hate to try it.... I bet it's like herding cats. smile

Jul 11 13 06:48 pm Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 12916

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Eyesso wrote:

Didn't they do that in pre-war germany?

I'm not the censor police....I don't care if skin shows, I'm not offended.  I just think it's silly when we censor tastefully done ART but then allow tasteless images that technically "follow the rules"

Can I report images that are CHEEZY to the point of being offensive to me?  smile

Only if you point out how much disk space and bandwidth Internet Brands would save, it would be staggering actually.

Jul 11 13 06:49 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

So.....

These are "18+" butt cheeks
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32492888 

And these are "not"
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/8317494 

Makes sense.

Jul 11 13 06:50 pm Link

Photographer

dgold

Posts: 10281

North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US

Eyesso wrote:
So.....

These are "18+" butt cheeks
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32492888 

And these are "not"
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/8317494 

Makes sense.

NOW YOU ARE CATCHING ON !

Jul 11 13 06:56 pm Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 8803

Olney, Maryland, US

Eyesso wrote:
Here's what my "rules" would look like....
"This is not a porn site, so nothing overtly sexual, nothing derogatory....OK?

Well that seems quite clear-cut to me.  Not.

Jul 11 13 07:00 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 37171

Columbus, Ohio, US

Mark Salo wrote:

Eyesso wrote:
What is 18+ anyway??

18+ on MM is specific to MM only.  Rules from Facebook, NYC or MET do not apply to MM.  Just like dress codes at your place of employment are independent of any other organization.

Really? No shit....where are we at right now?

Jul 11 13 07:12 pm Link

Photographer

Stanley L Moore

Posts: 1681

Houston, Texas, US

salvatori. wrote:
IMHO, the 18+ rules on MM have more arbitrary bullshit in them than Texas has bulls.

Careful now. Let's not insult Texas. smile

I dispute you contention. Whilethe rules are a bit odd they are enforced fairly I think.

Jul 11 13 07:26 pm Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 870

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

The American mind is a hard egg to crack. 

Since when did a list of body parts supersede common sense? 

"Conventionality is not morality."
---Charlotte Bronte


"What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful that the garment with which it is clothed?"
---Michaelangelo


"Forget not that modesty is for a shield against the eye of the unclean.
And when the unclean shall be no more, what were modesty but a fetter and a fouling of the mind?"
---Kahlil Gibran

Jul 11 13 07:32 pm Link