The one time pre-law student in me (back when I was only using my reptile brain) looked at all those words in that way. threatening tone, obscene, pornographic, intended to titillate, or depicts illegal acts are all pretty much subjective, rather than objective standards, and the illegal stuff is pretty much silly, as this is a world wide forum, and so the first question is "illegal where?"
For example, there are places where crossdressing is illegal and hence, pretty much all the pictures are illegal. Or, what if us NorCal and SoCal girls all got together here in SF and in the pictures one or more of us are puffing on a huge spliff there with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background? That's illegal in a lot of places, but not here, heck we might even have medical marijuana cards given out by the State of California. We could be authorized by the state to smoke our Mary Jane out there by the bridge - strictly medicinal, of course. And by the way, several states, recently adding Michigan, have such laws. However, its still a 'federal crime' but I don't think the DEA is out busting pot smokers on the California Coast. Matter of fact, I know they are not.
obscene, pornographic, intended to titillate Well I agree with Tasha here in that none of those pictures titillated me. The stuff of the Mexican Beauty Queen busted with all those guns and all that money, well some of those shots are pretty titillating, as they were posed, staged, and shot to be just that. I don't think any of these pictures hit near that mark. Really, if you're going to give me a hot shot of your firm ass in tight jeans, at least focus the camera.
Pornographic - not even close, as they were not intended to depict sex, there was no overt or covert sexual nature to those shots, except Audrey's which clearly caters to an established sexual fetish. Though being pornographic does not necessarily mean obscene, think the Klaw shots of Bettie Page, that are sexually very hot, but Miss Page was far from naked, in fact, she was overdressed.
I have nothing against standards, and since the only photos I've ever posted are pretty much of the light shows I work on, I don't have a dog in the fight. However, the best solution might just be to junk all that language, and have the standard be Susan's judgment, taste or desire, and let it go at that. It's her site, her rule, she decides. No different from work really - "because I'm the boss". But getting a group of people, from widely differing backgrounds to all have a say is problematic. And using that kind of language is also problematic. After all, the closest the Supreme Court of the United States could come to defining 'pornography' is "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it." Which, oddly enough, is also pretty much the definition of art.
Obscene, gosh, I read the news, from all over the world. I see pictures from Darfur, of living conditions in 3rd world countries, and of people on our own streets, of Abu Ghraib, and wonder how any picture, of any person, in their underwear could ever be considered obscene in contrast. That must be just me. I guess I'm a bit burned out on the whole "Naked Humans Are Obscene" thing. Mostly I find such naked human shots far more humorous than obscene. And more than that, the stuff I find in the backgrounds of such shots often tell me more about the person than their posts do.
So just say, Susan will make the decision, and let it stand at that.
