Post ARho0A0uGSLELTaEBE by john@sauropods.win
(DIR) More posts by john@sauropods.win
(DIR) Post #ARhj5UGLuGaap9WpfM by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:06:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In general, do you think (non-sexual) nudity should have a content warning?
(DIR) Post #ARhjBeysy9BnntIn7A by freemo@qoto.org
2023-01-16T15:08:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john yes but should be defined equally for men and women. If nipples are considered nudity then it should be consider the case for both sexes.
(DIR) Post #ARhjLsTxcvAEZZi2vw by Kbooki@meow.social
2023-01-16T15:10:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john if you're also CWing for things like food l, selfies, and eye contact, yeah probably.
(DIR) Post #ARhjUMmEsKKCqaJ4S0 by Colman@mastodon.ie
2023-01-16T15:11:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john the problem is that for large chunks of the population all nudity is sexual.
(DIR) Post #ARhjXXPhmkM0hkHMB6 by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:12:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo One argument I can think of for the disparity is that female breasts are sexual display structures, whereas mens nipples are just vestigial. This line of argument leads me to conclude that we should content-warn mens chins and beards.
(DIR) Post #ARhjdx4tHMBm2RbLzU by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:13:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Kbooki What if you don't?
(DIR) Post #ARhk79np31bHtwXnJg by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:18:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Is this nudity? Should I have warned you?
(DIR) Post #ARhkGfGvPlqy6lgqx6 by Kbooki@meow.social
2023-01-16T15:20:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Then it wouldn't be contradictory to your behavior if you chose not to.
(DIR) Post #ARhkNxfLQPxPBOajlg by slothdude@mastodon.online
2023-01-16T15:21:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john No. I mean, according to Magritte, you didn’t even post a picture of people, so... ;)
(DIR) Post #ARhkU5YP0iC3NuGYhk by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:22:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@slothdude@mastodon.onlineAcording to Magritte, there's no such thing as a picture of people!
(DIR) Post #ARhkZd1K0i8AcvQztw by chiasm@venera.social
2023-01-16T15:20:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Well, it depends... Generally, I don't care. But pictures of naked people suffering--starving, maimed, with nasty diseases, etc.--I would prefer not to have those go by without a CW. Happy folks consensually naked (over the age of 21)? No problem!
(DIR) Post #ARhkZdScNDxtzaCnRo by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:23:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@chiasm Yeah, I think those would be content warning for distressing scenes though. Not really related to nudity.
(DIR) Post #ARhkfJxzlSDTGpapE0 by silverseams@artisan.chat
2023-01-16T15:24:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john At minimum you should have something consistent a filter can latch onto.And maybe less (unintentional?) snark.
(DIR) Post #ARhkgH9jhRfGqKXXDU by hilodiver@outdoors.lgbt
2023-01-16T15:23:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I spend a couple days a week at a nude beach. Living in Hawaii means seeing people nearly naked walking around in public places including stores and restaurants daily. Imagine if all these people had CWs😎
(DIR) Post #ARhkgHcnxMuuIU8kWe by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:24:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hilodiver Clothes are CWs for the real world!
(DIR) Post #ARhkq65Bj0srOa60B6 by jkb@octodon.social
2023-01-16T15:26:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Yes, because even if it's non-sexual I'd rather not have nude people show up on my screen while I am at the office
(DIR) Post #ARhlx7VMw3KhmuFpYm by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:39:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nikodemus I think there's a problem with that approach, in that it can be used to silence uncomfortable topics. Some people want to see mentions of racism CWed. Others would like all politics CWed.There's also the problem of how why we choose certain things that affect some portion of the population, but not others. What if someone afraid of dogs (fairly common), do we CW for dogs?Should a scientist that works on spiders be forever content warning their pictures?
(DIR) Post #ARhmIliYcXH8aQkJQu by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:43:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@silverseams I think you should have CWed that for tone policing! 😉
(DIR) Post #ARhn2lrMQOvSLcnc6y by kolya@social.cologne
2023-01-16T15:51:30Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@john I for one voted for tiddies. Theropods are another matter.
(DIR) Post #ARhn4cSWLaO3lt3trM by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T15:51:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kolya Finally, the voice of reason!
(DIR) Post #ARhnY8PGe78fFjc8rA by deerbard@mstdn.io
2023-01-16T15:57:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Yes. No.
(DIR) Post #ARhnZTZPRhZJBDzugi by CAETFOOD@plush.city
2023-01-16T15:57:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john yes. Who can decide which ones are "sexual"?
(DIR) Post #ARhnqXNcXAmdv2cRCS by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T16:00:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@CAETFOOD There are plenty of images tout there that have no nudity but are so sexual there's no way should they be posted on general feeds without a warning. We simply use our judgement about those. Same for the ones that contain nudity.
(DIR) Post #ARho09b1ofdp3DTYqO by Colman@mastodon.ie
2023-01-16T16:00:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@CAETFOOD @john check for urns. Urns is art. Or cherubs.
(DIR) Post #ARho0A0uGSLELTaEBE by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T16:02:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Colman @CAETFOOD Cherubs are a real problem area. Sexualised images of babies, just hangin' up in art galleries the world over like it ain't a thing.
(DIR) Post #ARhoaoIrwggzj7Sebw by KanaMauna@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T16:08:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Photorealism – perhaps. 500 year old paintings of Venus coming out of a sea shell – no.
(DIR) Post #ARhp5hbssglJwe5NcO by bjn2@mastodon.social
2023-01-16T16:14:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I'm fine with that nudity, but hate social media polls.
(DIR) Post #ARhp9Md8pDeC2HQ5aq by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T16:15:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bjn2 Fair point. Should we CW polls?
(DIR) Post #ARhpHYu34z14PpElTU by anthracite@dragon.style
2023-01-16T16:16:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I have typed things like “cw: naked cartoon titties” a lot. I do not always use a formal CW for that, a lot of the time I just mark the image as sensitive and mention it in the toot.
(DIR) Post #ARhpIKQyMOHLpY0Dom by aweiss@mas.to
2023-01-16T16:16:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john A good rule of thumb: if an average office worker in your country could get in trouble with HR if the image came up while scrolling in the office, but a CW on it.
(DIR) Post #ARhpbVXTISxbm1BhWS by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T16:20:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aweiss I think this isn't a bad rule of thumb, but there's a fairly large discrepancy between countries, and the majority of our online interaction is international.
(DIR) Post #ARhpkSImhVz2LBaJBQ by ApisNecros@ioc.exchange
2023-01-16T16:21:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Yes, because right or wrong some of us browse Mastodon in the workplace, and being able to know that Not Safe For Work imagery won't just appear in our feeds can be paramount.Any instance that doesn't require CW's for nudity should be muted or worse, IMO
(DIR) Post #ARhqSosg78hH6rWnvU by suksisauvasekoitin@mstdn.social
2023-01-16T16:29:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john No, it’s fine to go without a CW. Non-sexual nudity shouldn’t need a CW (regardless of what American puritans say).
(DIR) Post #ARhrRyCc4UBlgV0koy by grendel84@tiny.tilde.website
2023-01-16T16:40:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@johnI beleve that photos or photo-realistic images containing nudity should always be CW'd.When it comes to paintings like the one you posted I would say use your best judgement:Know your audienceListen to feedback to learn what bothers people the mostUsing tagging so filters can be used by those who are uncomfortable
(DIR) Post #ARhrSivuKPkicIYZo8 by aweiss@mas.to
2023-01-16T16:40:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Yeah, everyone has to draw their own line somewhere. Pick a cultural standard, and when deciding whether or not to CW an image, err on the side of being respectful. It's not like clicking through a CW is all that difficult.
(DIR) Post #ARhrtVIf7iIU9ZyBk0 by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T16:45:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aweiss over-CWing has problems too. I have them turned off because so much stuff that I find completely innocuous is CWed on Mastodon, and I find the constant clicking annoying. It's lead to some shockers showing up that I was glad I wan't in public for!I guess what I'm saying is I think CWs can be devalued, and a lot of people will turn them off if we use them for too many things.
(DIR) Post #ARhsIZbsEj1YlAuTR2 by jfstudiospaleoart@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T16:49:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john dear gods
(DIR) Post #ARhsUTiRyYn7xHf996 by aweiss@mas.to
2023-01-16T16:52:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I think that's ok. I'm firmly in the "CWs work as subject lines" camp. One tap through is literally the bare minimum of work on the user end. If you choose to turn them off, you're signing yourself up for surprises.
(DIR) Post #ARhsy8TTW2VwlNneca by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T16:57:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aweiss Right, I guess we're coming at that from a different angle. Honestly, if every post required a click to see it, I probably wouldn't bother reading social media nearly as much. That's too much interaction required for such short-form things as Toots.
(DIR) Post #ARhtEX95YZUTuf5EXY by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T17:00:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nikodemus Things aren't red herrings just because you say so, could you explain your reasoning?
(DIR) Post #ARhtMwGC45k87ZPlRo by aweiss@mas.to
2023-01-16T17:02:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Then you end up in the self-curation camp, which is fine. I did see that the Mastodon feature roadmap has "exclude list from main feed" on it, which would let you have a SFW main feed that turns CWs off, with a separate list of NSFW accounts that you don't open up in public.
(DIR) Post #ARhuUdVrkak4FSynHU by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T17:14:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aweiss A NSFW list is an okay idea, but probably requires too much work for a lot of people to use effectively. I can see a subject-line or tag system that could work, but it would need regulation and some sort of default setting that you could tweak. People's custom content warnings and tags are impossible to filter properly.
(DIR) Post #ARhufj5lLeewjk3f72 by aweiss@mas.to
2023-01-16T17:16:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john The CW functionality is a subject line/tag system. Sounds like you're asking for an existing feature. Is there something else you'd like it to do? That's a good feature request.
(DIR) Post #ARhv69UXojkm8wFa9Q by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T17:21:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aweiss No, the CW and tag systems are freeform, so things will constantly be mis-filtered/mis-categorised.Standardising the CWs to a form with set categories could do it, but I understand why they went freeform (I actually think it's a cool feature).I don't have a solution, and honestly it's not a big problem for me. Just an interesting thing to think about that comes up in the context of art quite a bit.
(DIR) Post #ARhvLDC4KrwPy6n11c by aweiss@mas.to
2023-01-16T17:24:28Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@john Some preset CW categories isn't a bad idea. NSFW/nudity, NSFW/violence, CW/self-harm, CW/politics, etc. Obviously you can't precategorize everything, but providing a few starter options would let folks choose to filter their home feed a bit more.
(DIR) Post #ARhvp6vWCUJhDfIycy by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T17:29:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aweiss I like that: a few standard + custom option.
(DIR) Post #ARhy9ZOwF5LfEPwvtA by splicer@makersocial.online
2023-01-16T17:55:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Depends on what you mean by "should". If you're asking whether I think you have done something wrong, no. You haven't done something wrong.If you're asking whether I think it's a "Best Practice" to put nudity behind a CW even when it's non-sexual, then yes.In other words, no, you don't have to. And yes, there are some people who would appreciate it if you did. It's easy to do so I would. But I ain't here to tell you what to do. I'm just answering because you asked.
(DIR) Post #ARhyqV1aOGNm6rUs4G by splicer@makersocial.online
2023-01-16T18:03:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john PS The Hora of Spring is rushing to cover Venus up with that blanket, so Botticelli seems to think that we're getting a voyeuristic glimpse at something mere mortals aren't supposed to see. But then Sandro was a naughty, naughty boy.
(DIR) Post #ARi09y6Wb4Y5kredWK by llewelly@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T18:18:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I feel like this is hugely audience dependent, and also dependent on the circumstances in which one browses one's mastodon feed. But I decided to vote yes, even though I don't need it myself.
(DIR) Post #ARi1d8IJtAIriAdrbE by toplesstopics@eldritch.cafe
2023-01-16T18:34:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Before I answer, can you clarify if you consider "female looking nipples" to be "nudity" but not "male looking nipples?"
(DIR) Post #ARi1zttfaJZTiby7DE by toplesstopics@eldritch.cafe
2023-01-16T18:39:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john @freemo I am 100% for CWing beards anywhere that requires CWs for "female-looking nipples."My favorite bullshit argument is shit like Youtube-- "content intended for sexual purposes" soooo, Nicki Minaj deep-throating a banana, or endless videos of topless male strippers giving lap dances, isn't "intended for sexual purposes" but me sitting topless on my bed, reviewing Soylent Green, IS?(nonsexual female nipple warning in the link) www.toplesstopics.org/banned
(DIR) Post #ARi2F9nKl8bFMuHPfs by toplesstopics@eldritch.cafe
2023-01-16T18:41:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Reminds me of the numerous bans I've gotten for "implied nudity" when I covered my heinous female-looking nipples with a big solid digital pastie...as if female nipples cease to exist once you put on a shirt.
(DIR) Post #ARi2VSGJrhuTHHbp4q by toplesstopics@eldritch.cafe
2023-01-16T18:44:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john excuse me but it is literally impossible for any content to be sexual as long as there are no female nipples or genitals showing, Youtube says so.
(DIR) Post #ARi2mU2gV4SZinLqQy by toplesstopics@eldritch.cafe
2023-01-16T18:47:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I have all CWs set to expand, but keep sensitive photos censored unlessI individually press to see them. I support a lot of sex workers, but I really don't like to have graphic sexual content pop into my feed unexpectedly. That being said, it takes an awful lot to trigger me, and most of what I find triggering (guns, violence, starving children, etc) DOESN'T get CWed while stuff that doesn't bother me at all (nonsexual nudity, female nipples) DOES. Makes me feel like I was born into the wrong culture at times, though IDK what culture has norms flipped the way they are for me.
(DIR) Post #ARi3Qcbo4MsdsCv1bE by DynaSore@fosstodon.org
2023-01-16T18:55:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Hard to say. I always find nudity rules to be inconsistent.
(DIR) Post #ARi7KzZaAysjAsRvu4 by llewelly@sauropods.win
2023-01-16T19:38:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john @kolya I have nothing against CW for theropods, but I think for the sake of efficiency the list of theropods which need CW can be trimmed down to just two: Spinosaurus and Spinosaurus.: )
(DIR) Post #ARiGh413Ek28udtgm0 by carcinopithecus@x0r.be
2023-01-16T21:23:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john once you start thinking about male gaze in fine art there's no clear end to your ability to question which is which with no satisfactory universal answerthen there's anatomical and medical stuff that might warrant a CW just because it's often sensitive for the people involved or so explicit that it's very blatant to everyone who has line of sight with your screen that you're looking at genitals or whatever
(DIR) Post #ARiTMeft2ox1vjb2Vk by admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org
2023-01-16T23:45:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john @hilodiver Makes mit think of those pants with "juicy" written on the butt. Like, literally a CW.
(DIR) Post #ARiyH8TuPLK5DRqGTA by irtapil@sauropods.win
2023-01-17T05:31:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Not what i clicked yes for.But it is slightly sexual.I was thinking more of when i click an ambiguous Wikipedia link and end up on a page that is half filled with a medical close up of human genitalia. "Educational" or not I would prefer they had a "blurred till you click" thing for that.But the most passionate wiki editors are often "what is the worst straight white dude on the Internet… but… passive aggressive" so requesting that is futile?
(DIR) Post #ARj8J9iXmYg5AcHzwe by Twarda@sauropods.win
2023-01-17T07:24:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john If I was answering from my PoV and how I use social media, I'd go for 'No' as nudity is just nudity (I'm European btw).But the context is often lost on the internet, as well as I can see it being easily misused (often purposefully than not). So, for general (mass-?) use, I'd say 'Yes'. With an option to opt out, I think.
(DIR) Post #ARjgkoW3bBzLxtoCEi by mike@sauropods.win
2023-01-17T13:50:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john The "NSFW" categorization is rather good: non-judgemental, but saying exactly what the problem is.
(DIR) Post #ARjgoNetOdN1pIdsBs by mike@sauropods.win
2023-01-17T13:51:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john Haha, I voted "yes" in the poll, but the answer here is "no". I guess I contain multutudes.
(DIR) Post #ARjqzETEtdJE3d0Llw by Akki@sauropods.win
2023-01-17T15:35:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Colman @john thanks for reminding me of that one arsehole who got angry at my photographer profile on modelmayhem for saying I only photo nonsexual nudes. Eesh. That was a 100% not asked for email.
(DIR) Post #ARjqzFc8e21PbWAyHY by Colman@mastodon.ie
2023-01-17T15:43:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Akki @john my wife has been traumatised by Americans on dog groups complaining that pictures of dogs lying on their backs or dogs having bums constitute inappropriate nudity and need to be censored sooooooo …
(DIR) Post #ARjqzFy7KJbQhgSWXY by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-17T15:45:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Colman @Akki What do they want to do to those dogs...? Don't answer that.
(DIR) Post #ARjxJ3X5s7rreQdwzg by AdamStuartSmith@sauropods.win
2023-01-17T16:55:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john @Colman @Akki John, I was going to comment that all the dinosaurs in your paintings are nude, but then I remembered some of them are wearing clothes.
(DIR) Post #ARjyI9dnmBzsGAunM8 by AdamStuartSmith@sauropods.win
2023-01-17T17:07:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john @nikodemus What kind of spider? If oreo cookie spider in burrow, then maybe, yeah.
(DIR) Post #ATLe81ctxQHibCNpke by harisonmorison@hostux.social
2023-03-06T19:12:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john