- Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:48 pm
#11238
There once was a time, VW never allowed any underage in the images posted. Not even allowed cartoons of kids in profile pics. Some got banned for posting cartoons with children in them. Zero tolerance.
The idea was that VW was about erotic images. Erotic and sexual go hand in hand. Any references to underage was forbidden. Any. Zero tolerance.
Now, most nudist camps are not a sexual in nature. In fact, sexual conduct can you you booted from many nudist camps. They attempt to remain totally family friendly. This is totally different than VW - totally non-family friendly. Nudity is not sexual, in itself. Context makes it sexual. The context of VW makes images sexual here.
Has VW changed that much?
http://www.voyeurweb.com/contributions/view/207065/
Yes, it is a statue, and not a person. But I refer you back to the banning of people for posting cartoon images of children. Zero tolerance on this subject. Once VW allows a little tolerance, where is the line? Will VW allow nude beach pics with children in the background? What about a pic of a mother breast feeding? All quite innocent and acceptable apart from any sexual references, but VW is that sexual reference.
Who reviewed this contri at VW? Who processed the images? Who approved for posting? Had it been a real child, I'd be call the authorities. A statue? Perhaps the right course is for VW to consider firing or giving those people a long time off work without pay. Unless VW wants to change their direction towards a non-Zero tolerance?
The idea was that VW was about erotic images. Erotic and sexual go hand in hand. Any references to underage was forbidden. Any. Zero tolerance.
Now, most nudist camps are not a sexual in nature. In fact, sexual conduct can you you booted from many nudist camps. They attempt to remain totally family friendly. This is totally different than VW - totally non-family friendly. Nudity is not sexual, in itself. Context makes it sexual. The context of VW makes images sexual here.
Has VW changed that much?
http://www.voyeurweb.com/contributions/view/207065/
Yes, it is a statue, and not a person. But I refer you back to the banning of people for posting cartoon images of children. Zero tolerance on this subject. Once VW allows a little tolerance, where is the line? Will VW allow nude beach pics with children in the background? What about a pic of a mother breast feeding? All quite innocent and acceptable apart from any sexual references, but VW is that sexual reference.
Who reviewed this contri at VW? Who processed the images? Who approved for posting? Had it been a real child, I'd be call the authorities. A statue? Perhaps the right course is for VW to consider firing or giving those people a long time off work without pay. Unless VW wants to change their direction towards a non-Zero tolerance?