Jump to content

Since no one is brave enough to do it... [NSFW]


"User"

Recommended Posts

...and since there has been discussion about what constitutes yiff (tasteful nudity or otherwise) in another topic I thought I'd break the ice and upload the first picture of "tasteful" nudity concerning a Star Fox character and it's obvious who I'm referring to.  :P

As per this sub-forums rules, this recent picture by the popular Krystal artist shiroiwolf shows the perfect example of R rated material.  Of course all of her Krystal pictures are well done. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd argue that the word "porn" is subjective and for many, this could be violating the rules the board description lays out, but meh. I'd rather wait for a little bit and then have fun with this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked at the image against my better judgement, and it didn't make me physically nauseous, but I don't know if I'd call that tasteful, artistic nudity because it seems more like she's naked for the sake of being naked, and not for any artistic purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd both be incorrect.  There is nothing rule breaking about the OP and anything R rated is more or less designated as "tasteful" and as such is allowed by the rules.  "Artistic", yes, can be more or less subjective but as long as it doesn't have any sex acts or anything that CLEARLY define it as porn than it's allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bare boobs are R nowadays, so it's allowed, I would say that the crotch area is allowed to be naked as well as long as it's not too descriptive or I dunno, User? help  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bare boobs are R nowadays, so it's allowed, I would say that the crotch area is allowed to be naked as well as long as it's not too descriptive or I dunno, User? help  :P

I concur. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bare boobs are R nowadays, so it's allowed, I would say that the crotch area is allowed to be naked as well as long as it's not too descriptive or I dunno, User? help  :P

As long as it's not being displayed in an explicitly sexual way. Like opening up her legs and showing her bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it's not being displayed in an explicitly sexual way. Like opening up her legs and showing her bits.

Yeah, the context of the picture will have to be taken into consideration as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked at the image against my better judgement, and it didn't make me physically nauseous, but I don't know if I'd call that tasteful, artistic nudity because it seems more like she's naked for the sake of being naked, and not for any artistic purposes.

Ah, but you see... what are the chances of you just randomly catching someone naked? Any nude (photo) shoot is nudity for the sake of nudity. There are definitely exceptions, such as when the subject is covered in something to make a statement. But just naked people? I find they're usually just naked for the sake of being naked, and that can acutally be pretty artistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it! I really wouldn't call this one racy, and it's definitely a lot tamer than other pictures I've had the misfortune to encounter.

I think the distinction between artistic nudity and smut has been extremely blurred. Whenever something even slightly revealing is placed in art, people throw up red flags and call it "dirty".

Not everything with nudity in it is porn, despite public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everything with nudity in it is porn, despite public opinion.

It all kind of depends. To put it in perspective, a penny is not a screwdriver, but can function as one.

By technical definition, any given nudity may not be pornographic at all. However, opinion and subjectivity can sway that. To some people, the image of something as small as a ball gag could be "porn" or rather, serve the same purpose. Where this is all going is, does "porn" in this board count by the dictionary definition, or the urban definition? Because a thread full of pictures like this may very well go over the line without actually breaking any pacts, but it does raise the question of why the pact was there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all the same. The same image can be an attractive pinup, an artistic rendering of the human form, or filth, depending on how it's presented to the viewer.

eg. Put the above image in a tacky frame and put it in a gallery, it's high art, but it in a lads mag and it's frowned upon. As someone who finds the human body a hidious abomination, I don't care either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...