Not happy about the new ratings system by SF

It panders quite directly to the vocal minority of artists who have convinced themselves that their obviously sexual works are "not porn" and just want an excuse to turn up their noses at the people they consider lesser artists, namely the ones who aren't ashamed of adult subject matter. I really have trouble believing that anyone who isn't one of these snobby prudes honestly cared if their "artistic" (whatever that means) nudes were grouped into the Explicit category.

This is all time that could have been spent on something of actual value, like improving the collections system or implementing a sane default image size.

Not happy about the new ratings system

SF

7 April 2013 at 20:32:49 MDT

Journal Information

Views:
233
Comments:
4
Favorites:
0
Rating:
General

Tags Modify

Edit Tags


Comments

  • Link

    Haha, I know this journal is old, but I'm actually one of the people that made that change happen, because something I drew that was not adult was tagged with the explicit tag and it was definitely not adult.

    Have your opinion I suppose, but it certainly wasn't about 'turning up my nose' at people who aren't ashamed of adult subject matter (lol) and you shouldn't make such broad generalizations in such situations :P

    • Link

      Judging from your story and gallery, you weren't one of the people I was talking about. Many of the other artists who spearheaded this system had less legitimate reasons than yours, and epitomize a larger problem. They're happy to sell art that is obviously pornographic at the same time as slutshaming their target audience. Then they draw personal art where a buxom animal person with D-cup tits is pulling her panties down and bending over for the camera, then they freak out at it being considered sexual because "It's just meant to be cute and innocent god why do you have to make everything perverted". That's why I was sarcastically referring to what they call "artistic nudes". Those were the people I was calling snobs and prudes; The ones that want to sell and exploit sex while simultaneously proclaiming to be "better than that", because it's apparently something you need to be better than.

      • Link

        My gallery was cleared out because of that incident, so I dunno what you can infer from looking at my gallery :P

        Slutshaming is a problem that always needs addressed, however I don't think it applies here. The situation you describe, a sexual pinup passed off by the artist as a "tasteful nude", is simply bad judgment on the part of the artist- if there is sexuality prevalent, there should be an Explicit tag, and a "pulling down panties and bending over" pose is definitely explicit. The image that prompted my own outrage was an emotional piece of a nude woman crying and holding a rose... that's definitely not adult-oriented, yet it was demanded I put an adult tag on it. I removed my gallery and spoke with administration, and surely enough, it was resolved in the next update.

        I can't speak for everyone, but my viewpoint is that all types of art-general, mature, adult, etc- should be celebrated and enjoyed! I just also think they should be rated accurately.

        • Link

          Fair enough. Wiping your gallery sounds extreme to me but I agree with you that that the work you describe shouldn't be categorized as sexually explicit.

          I think the original very strict categories here were a product of their context, namely how lax FA's joke of a ratings system is, with men showing off their penis sheaths generally getting away with G ratings and what have you.