Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 96
  1. #41
    I'm not sure how popular it is but personally what has irritated me with the Mature rating is the fact that just because I would like to see nonsexual artistic nudity does not mean that I really want to have to sift through all of the other sections to the max? Is it because of detailed nudity that it is also bumped up to 18+ for legal reasons? I just wonder because I used to have my max rating to Mature but it became too cumbersome to have to sift through the rest of it sometimes (and trying to tag block only got so far) so I just bumped it back down. Don't get me wrong I love that it's separated from Explicit but sometimes I wish it matched Moderate for the rest of the sections instead, although I don't know how possible that is. Actually to be clear I don't think I'm too bothered if it has to be 18+, if it does, but the rest of it is mainly my complaint.

    Also I was curious about the idea suggested of selecting why someone sets it to that rating in specific, but although it could alternatively be fixed simply with tagging, that relies on the poster to be responsible enough to do so unless they actually don't mind others doing it for them (not often).

    Keep up the good work though guys, hopefully some of the discussions can help smooth out any bumps with the ratings!
    Weasyl || dA
    ▲❖ | Comm Queue & Info | ❖▲

    Be excellent to each other.

  2. #42
    Why not consider a switch to a tag based rating system? It would allow more flexibility and searchability.

    So you could have Mature: Tag: Artistic nudity. Or Mature Tag: Mild violence.

    Also everyone asking for hard and fast lines? It would be nice if any site could do that but realistically nobody has ever been able to have hard and fast lines, even legal definitions of pornography come down to "I'll know it when I see it" on a judge's part. Realistically people are going to disagree on the definitions, some will have reasonable objections, some will have unreasonable ones. The only options are often whatever most people are most comfortable with and judgment calls for anything unforeseen that pops up.

  3.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #43
    Retired Staff Frank LeRenard's Avatar
    Weasyl
    MLR
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Land of the Finns
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by LNight View Post
    There is a thing as making something to simple and complicated.
    You have to explain things since there can be exceptions to any rule.
    The Tom and Jerry example would include a simple explanation of why that could be allowed under General despite it depicting violence.
    Tom and Jerry level violence is obviously cartoonish, unlike something coming from Fight Club, which is much more on the graphic and gory violence.
    It sounds to me like you're not about to really change anything, so why the purpose of this thread?
    Sorry if I sound hostile, but to me right now it seems like either there will just be added more stuff to make things more complicated than they have to be, or then no changes will be done at all.
    Even with proper ratings the tagging system as it is now, means content might show up to people who may not wanna see it, due to a lag of proper tagging.
    A missing tag can mean someone who wants to just see porn take place in a bathroom or not, might also end up seeing Watersports and Scat when they don't wanna be anywhere near it.
    While I'm waiting for supper to cook....

    Let me clarify: I agree we should simplify the current ratings guide. I did say I'm currently on board with the idea to combine Moderate and General somehow, and reduce the number of ratings to 3, for example.

    I was explaining why I think it's unwise to simplify things [b]too much[\b]. I mentioned this in another thread, but there is a balance to this. Too complicated and no one will read/be able to learn the rules. Too simple and it's just a free-for-all, both in terms of how users choose to rate and how staff members choose to rate. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Furrhan View Post
    I don't think drug use should ever be viewed or described as comedic. Drugs are destructive and dangerous. I would argue that any depictions of drug use (aside from normal use of something like aspirin if a character gets hit on the head or is hungover) should be kept to the mature or explicit ratings. A professional site in my opinion should not trivialise drug use.
    I'd like to second this sentiment somewhat. I'm put off by how easily I end up seeing casual depictions of drug use here. Things that are technically rated correctly catch me off-guard constantly because I'd been 1) running under the assumption this content would be mature (so warnings went unheeded) and 2) unaware of where in the guidelines this is actually sits (because I honestly lost track of it in all of the text trying to explain everything else).

    I'm in favor of simplifying the ratings in general as others have mentioned more than anything, but bumping up the rating of this subject matter for older audiences, or at least reworking the phrasing mentioned, is something I'd prefer, too.

  5. #45
    Regular KarlaChan's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Karla-Chan
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    33
    I really feel that artistic nude should be separate to the other 18+ material. I really feel annoyed that things like a topless women is in the same category as a man with an erection, and strong violence. I think there is a world of difference here. I know there are plenty of people who might want to see artistic nude, but not the other stronger content that is in the 18+ category. But anything male is fine like that, when really it is all the same tissues and there shouldn't be a difference that separates the sexes like that.

    I think the "legal" issue is a pretty poor excuse if I am very honest. Since artistic nude can be seen in art galleries, and other public places with minors all the time.

    I agree that anything remotely sexual should be in the 18+ category because it can be classed a pornography. Which many countries not just the USA have an over 18's only. I would even mind if the distinction was no full frontal nudity, and anything like that was in the 18+ but; things like topless or just showing the bum really is not as bad. So I would like the additional category of artistic nude that is above 13+ but not as harsh as 18+. Or at the very least even if it is 18+ it being it's own things so people can just to see that material but not stronger 18+ material.

    I would also like see to art of men and women to be held to the same standard. Since I think holding the same about of nudity for different genders, to different standards is inherently wrong.

    Also WTAF is the deal with holding breast milk as sexual fluid?? This if I am honest out right offends me, because it is meant to feed and nourish a child. It is not sperm. Classing it as a sexual fluid like sperm, just reminds me of the arguments against public breast feeding because men can't get their penises out. I really think things really need clearing up in that respect.

  6.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #46
    Retired Staff Tiger's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Tiger
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    grrl
    Posts
    1,287
    Quote Originally Posted by KarlaChan View Post
    I really feel that artistic nude should be separate to the other 18+ material. I really feel annoyed that things like a topless women is in the same category as a man with an erection, and strong violence. I think there is a world of difference here. I know there are plenty of people who might want to see artistic nude, but not the other stronger content that is in the 18+ category. But anything male is fine like that, when really it is all the same tissues and there shouldn't be a difference that separates the sexes like that.
    If I'm understanding this correctly- you'd prefer the nudes separated from sexually explicit content? That's actually what we've got right now for our Ratings system- the Mature category is for artistic nudity with no sexual content, and the Explicit is for anything with sexually explicit content.


    I think the "legal" issue is a pretty poor excuse if I am very honest. Since artistic nude can be seen in art galleries, and other public places with minors all the time.
    This is legitimately the law. We cannot do anything to circumvent the fact that depictions of nudity or sex acts are not allowed to be distributed to minors. I don't know about any special permissions public art galleries have to follow, but it's a bit irrelevant here. At the end of the day, Weasyl, as a website, cannot distribute this kind of material to anyone known to be a minor/ (Yes, I'm aware the second link says 16 years is the age when teens can look at this stuff; depending on location the age considered "minor" is 16, 17, or 18. Weasyl goes by 18).

    I agree that anything remotely sexual should be in the 18+ category because it can be classed a pornography. Which many countries not just the USA have an over 18's only. I would even mind if the distinction was no full frontal nudity, and anything like that was in the 18+ but; things like topless or just showing the bum really is not as bad. So I would like the additional category of artistic nude that is above 13+ but not as harsh as 18+. Or at the very least even if it is 18+ it being it's own things so people can just to see that material but not stronger 18+ material.
    I admit, I'm having a little bit of difficulty interpreting this part of your post. If I get anything wrong, please correct me right away. Honestly, from the sounds of what you've requested here, I feel like we already have this- a 13+ category for mild sexual content, and an 18+ for tasteful nudes, and an 18+ for sexual content. As was said previously in the thread, we are not going to be adding any categories that will allow people who are legally considered minors to access material that, by law, they are prohibited to have.


    I would also like see to art of men and women to be held to the same standard. Since I think holding the same about of nudity for different genders, to different standards is inherently wrong.
    Unfortunately, this is another part of our Ratings Guidelines where we are legally bound. Legally, we cannot distribute material that contains exposed mammaries to anyone under the age of 18. Unless the law changes, this is not a part of the Ratings that we will be able to change.

    Also WTAF is the deal with holding breast milk as sexual fluid?? This if I am honest out right offends me, because it is meant to feed and nourish a child. It is not sperm. Classing it as a sexual fluid like sperm, just reminds me of the arguments against public breast feeding because men can't get their penises out. I really think things really need clearing up in that respect.
    As the note in the Ratings Guidelines says, breast milk is not considered a sexual fluid if it is present for the feeding of an infant. However, if there is something sexual going on that is causing lactation, then we will consider it a sexual fluid.

  7. #47
    Regular KarlaChan's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Karla-Chan
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger View Post
    If I'm understanding this correctly- you'd prefer the nudes separated from sexually explicit content? That's actually what we've got right now for our Ratings system- the Mature category is for artistic nudity with no sexual content, and the Explicit is for anything with sexually explicit content.



    This is legitimately the law. We cannot do anything to circumvent the fact that depictions of nudity or sex acts are not allowed to be distributed to minors. I don't know about any special permissions public art galleries have to follow, but it's a bit irrelevant here. At the end of the day, Weasyl, as a website, cannot distribute this kind of material to anyone known to be a minor/ (Yes, I'm aware the second link says 16 years is the age when teens can look at this stuff; depending on location the age considered "minor" is 16, 17, or 18. Weasyl goes by 18).



    I admit, I'm having a little bit of difficulty interpreting this part of your post. If I get anything wrong, please correct me right away. Honestly, from the sounds of what you've requested here, I feel like we already have this- a 13+ category for mild sexual content, and an 18+ for tasteful nudes, and an 18+ for sexual content. As was said previously in the thread, we are not going to be adding any categories that will allow people who are legally considered minors to access material that, by law, they are prohibited to have.



    Unfortunately, this is another part of our Ratings Guidelines where we are legally bound. Legally, we cannot distribute material that contains exposed mammaries to anyone under the age of 18. Unless the law changes, this is not a part of the Ratings that we will be able to change.



    As the note in the Ratings Guidelines says, breast milk is not considered a sexual fluid if it is present for the feeding of an infant. However, if there is something sexual going on that is causing lactation, then we will consider it a sexual fluid.
    I feel that your missing my main point. I feel there is a huge difference between a mildly topless person, and some of the other stronger 18+ content. This is my issue here I want the artist nude (like nude but no presence of genitals; like the penis or vagina) separated from other 18+ content such as violence and gore.

    Which is why if you are claiming it's legally binding then why are male mammaries the same rating system? Especially when we're not talking about any sexual simulation? Just the level of thing you would see in a shopping mall, or art gallery?

    Other websites do actually have a 16+ rating for artistic nude. Which would be higher than 13+ but not as strong as 18+. Just I want to be able to look at tasteful nudity without seeing horrific gore and violence.

    Although thanks for clearing up the breast milk issue. I think the guidelines could word that a little better though. Although a woman breastfeeding a child if she was artistic nude then it would go in 18+ any way?

  8.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #48
    Retired Staff Tiger's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Tiger
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    grrl
    Posts
    1,287
    Quote Originally Posted by KarlaChan View Post
    I feel that your missing my main point. I feel there is a huge difference between a mildly topless person, and some of the other stronger 18+ content. This is my issue here I want the artist nude (like nude but no presence of genitals; like the penis or vagina) separated from other 18+ content such as violence and gore.
    I think I'm starting to see what you mean, I apologize if my response to your first post contained an inaccurate interpretation.

    So if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer that topless characters be in their own rating tier? And that any full nudity, including showing genitals, be in a separate group from topless characters? I honestly would prefer not to have a whole bunch of rating tiers for different types of nudity. That seems like it would make things more complicated to rate, and would end up making our Ratings Guidelines document longer, which many users have expressed is too long already. To me, I think it would be more effective to have any exposure of body parts that are deemed not appropriate for minors to view be in one category, then anything depicting those same body parts in sexual situations be in a different category.

    I'm really sorry if I'm still misinterpreting you. If I've quoted you wrong, please feel free to correct me; I want to make sure I'm not getting anything wrong.


    Which is why if you are claiming it's legally binding then why are male mammaries the same rating system? Especially when we're not talking about any sexual simulation? Just the level of thing you would see in a shopping mall, or art gallery?
    I apologize for kind of sidestepping this, but I really don't feel comfortable getting into the "male vs. female" topic- we've done our best to avoid using the terms "male" and "female" in our Guidelines because those terms can cause a whole lot of problems. What our Ratings say is, any full exposure of the actual organ scientifically called a mammary is considered nudity and thus rated in the Mature category. It is a double-standard, that "male" bodies are considered fine to display topless, and "female" bodies are not considered fine to display topless, but there is nothing Weasyl can do about that. We have to follow the law; or we could be in serious trouble for it. This is something that we are simply unable to change.


    Other websites do actually have a 16+ rating for artistic nude. Which would be higher than 13+ but not as strong as 18+. Just I want to be able to look at tasteful nudity without seeing horrific gore and violence.
    I don't know which other websites do that, nor do I know their reason for doing that, but I can tell you that regardless of the situation of other sites, Weasyl cannot, and will not, allow anyone under the age of 18 view either artistic nudity or sexual content. I'm sorry that I am coming down so hard on this, but this is one of the things about our Ratings Guidelines that just cannot change.

    Also- if you would like to block out the violence and gore in the Mature category, you could possibly try using our tag blacklisting feature. Let me know if you need any assistance with the feature, and myself or another staff member would be happy to help.

    Although thanks for clearing up the breast milk issue. I think the guidelines could word that a little better though. Although a woman breastfeeding a child if she was artistic nude then it would go in 18+ any way?
    That's a fair point. Do you have any suggestions for wording that could make it more clear? Also, yes, if she was nude while breastfeeding it would go into Mature 18+.

  9. #49
    I would support going to a two-rating system- "General" and "Adult". The only real reason we use ratings is for legal reasons, and the only real legal distinction is the one for adult material, the 18+ one.

  10. #50
    Regular KarlaChan's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Karla-Chan
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger View Post
    I think I'm starting to see what you mean, I apologize if my response to your first post contained an inaccurate interpretation.

    So if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer that topless characters be in their own rating tier? And that any full nudity, including showing genitals, be in a separate group from topless characters? I honestly would prefer not to have a whole bunch of rating tiers for different types of nudity. That seems like it would make things more complicated to rate, and would end up making our Ratings Guidelines document longer, which many users have expressed is too long already. To me, I think it would be more effective to have any exposure of body parts that are deemed not appropriate for minors to view be in one category, then anything depicting those same body parts in sexual situations be in a different category.

    I'm really sorry if I'm still misinterpreting you. If I've quoted you wrong, please feel free to correct me; I want to make sure I'm not getting anything wrong.



    I apologize for kind of sidestepping this, but I really don't feel comfortable getting into the "male vs. female" topic- we've done our best to avoid using the terms "male" and "female" in our Guidelines because those terms can cause a whole lot of problems. What our Ratings say is, any full exposure of the actual organ scientifically called a mammary is considered nudity and thus rated in the Mature category. It is a double-standard, that "male" bodies are considered fine to display topless, and "female" bodies are not considered fine to display topless, but there is nothing Weasyl can do about that. We have to follow the law; or we could be in serious trouble for it. This is something that we are simply unable to change.




    I don't know which other websites do that, nor do I know their reason for doing that, but I can tell you that regardless of the situation of other sites, Weasyl cannot, and will not, allow anyone under the age of 18 view either artistic nudity or sexual content. I'm sorry that I am coming down so hard on this, but this is one of the things about our Ratings Guidelines that just cannot change.

    Also- if you would like to block out the violence and gore in the Mature category, you could possibly try using our tag blacklisting feature. Let me know if you need any assistance with the feature, and myself or another staff member would be happy to help.



    That's a fair point. Do you have any suggestions for wording that could make it more clear? Also, yes, if she was nude while breastfeeding it would go into Mature 18+.

    It is the same organ for men and women to the point men can actual develop breast cancer. So that is why the wording that says that the law excludes showing mammaries is incorrect if you allow men to show theirs. Your wording is flawed, and makes the double standard worse.

    Also under your current rating a man with an erected penis but not engaging in sexual activities comes in the same category as a topless artistic nude women?? How does that make sense for a rating system? How does that even compare?

    Can you understand why with the edition of breast milk sometimes being a "sexual fluid" that I get the impression that this sites current guidelines heavily discriminate female bodies??

    Also one extra category for artistic nude is not that complicated. It also would answer the last question. It's up to you if you want to make that 16+ or 18+ but the things I have been talking about have mainly been suggestions on what the guidelines in that category should be.

    Also as for other websites DeviantArt have different maturity levels. Which is a US site so under the same law. Which allows moderate nudity to be viewed by under 18s. As long as it's not explicit like full frontal for example, but a woman simply being topless in a none sexual manner would just come under their mature warning, rather than their strict 18+.

    This is why I don't get when I have brought this up in the past I get told. That's US law sorry no, we are not listening to your concerns we are being firm on this. Since other sites, art sites have a different standard on this then you currently hold.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •