Feedback on new policy announcement.

[LexxRuthless]

What does make sense, after thinking this over quite a bit, is that what sets Literotica apart from all the other sites out there is the massive repository of erotic stories. The cash-generating banners are only on that side of the site. This is still pretty much a "mom and pop" business, run by @Manu & @Laurel and they may simply be tired of the headaches of managing the forums. If nudity threatens to derail the entire enterprise, even if it seems like an unrealistic problem to us, they may simply be tired of dealing with it. "Let them go post their nudes elsewhere. It's not what we're about."

I'm not saying I agree with it, or that I am happy about it. Just that it makes sense.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm not saying I agree with it, or that I am happy about it. Just that it makes sense.

Maybe we just sit back and see what happens.

I have a small collection of drawings posted story-side, nudes but not porno explicit. If they suddenly disappear then we know the site is serious, which would be very disappointing.

 

[THROBBS]

Photographers are authors with cameras and film/digital sensors. Are the photographs of Ansel Adams, Man Ray, Robert Maplethorpe, and Annie Leibovitz not ‘art’? Putting aside the posting debate, do you actually believe that photographers aren’t artists and that photography doesn’t deserve to be considered a form of art?

The issue here, is less about the artistry of one medium or another.

It is the proximity to reality.

Photography is largely a record/transcription/depiction of (in this context) people. Whereas manual art might be, or completely made up. That "distance" provides the wiggle room to become fantasy.

Sure, there are photographs which are staged to be fantasies, but if there are live models, well that is to scary/offensive/disturbing/exciting/palpable.

That being said — if the issue is about "over the shoulder" viewing — Most of my work (shown on LIT) is "scarier" (scarring?) than a lot of nude photos (ignoring any "artistry").

The big question to ponder is about "erotic" vs "pornographic" and that will not be solved. SO either ban ALL nudes (regardless of medium and explicitness) or have a mechanism to hide them discretely.

 

[THROBBS]

"erotic"? I think so.
"pornographic"? Sure.
"artistic"? I think, more so than some of mine.
Would I want it popping up while I was at the café? No.
Would I be browsing the erotic art section at the café? No. (well, maybe. - if I had the gunfighter seat, I might)

Will I take it (and the rest) down if Manu & Laurel decide "no nudes" of any sort. Sure.
Will I be disappointed? yes.

 

[LexxRuthless]

If not for my concern over "where the hell are we headed?" I would love to dive deeply into these conversations. What is art? What is pornography? How do these interpretations affect our freedom of expression? What is "acceptable" censorship? I mean, these are debates that have consumed great minds for generations and I believe the discourse is inherently valuable -- completely separate from the current issues we face here on Literotica.

 

[THROBBS]

If not for my concern over "where the hell are we headed?" I would love to dive deeply into these conversations. What is art? What is pornography? How do these interpretations affect our freedom of expression? What is "acceptable" censorship? I mean, these are debates that have consumed great minds for generations and I believe the discourse is inherently valuable -- completely separate from the current issues we face here on Literotica.

Not "completely different."

They are adjacent.

Generally, we define pornography as visual, but I'd be willing to argue (elsewhere and/or another time) that some written works are pornographic. heck a quick google turns up: "Pornography (colloquially called porn or porno) is sexually suggestive material, such as a picture, video, text, or audio, intended for sexual arousal."

However, so long as "nude" is defined and "no" is defined (not immediately visible?, not hosted on LIT? Not at all?) then good to go.

 

[YourSecretDesires]

My read is no nudity can be displayed, at all. Not in stories, illustrated stories, author profiles, forum posts, avatars and profiles or anywhere else on Lit.

The old/current policy makes this exception:


Here are the basic Forum Photo Guidelines:

• Legally, we can allow soft nudity, but under current United States law, photographs (does not apply to non-photographic images) posted on this site may not contain “sexually explicit conduct”, which the government defines as:

https://www.literotica.com/faq/forum/forum-thread-picture-rules


That exception appears to be going away, unless we can save it for the artists.

The law cited refers to 18 U.S. Code Chapter 110 Part I - SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Code § 2256 - Definitions for chapter​

Which is an important law prohibiting child pornography which clearly is illegal.

Adult images are not.

It's Literotica's prerogative to ban whatever content it wants on its site, but it should just say so instead of pretending nude adult images are illegal.

However I'll respectfully abstain from posting such images here.

 

[LexxRuthless]

Not "completely different."

They are adjacent.

Generally, we define pornography as visual, but I'd be willing to argue (elsewhere and/or another time) that some written works are pornographic. heck a quick google turns up: "Pornography (colloquially called porn or porno) is sexually suggestive material, such as a picture, video, text, or audio, intended for sexual arousal."

However, so long as "nude" is defined and "no" is defined (not immediately visible?, not hosted on LIT? Not at all?) then good to go.

You are correct sir. What I meant to say was that I would enjoy a philosophical discourse on any of these topics. What we are facing on the site right now is an uncertain future for one of our favorite places and it has us feeling anxious, angry, or disappointed.

 

[THROBBS]

You are correct sir. What I meant to say was that I would enjoy a philosophical discourse on any of these topics. What we are facing on the site right now is an uncertain future for one of our favorite places and it has us feeling anxious, angry, or disappointed.

I get what you were saying.
There have been threads on those topics, over in the visual artist's corner.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Does this mean the ads for the Lit live webcams will be removed from the forums? I'd be down that that. The rest is no skin of my nose.

 

[AngelicaS1780]

The issue here, is less about the artistry of one medium or another.

It is the proximity to reality.

Photography is largely a record/transcription/depiction of (in this context) people. Whereas manual art might be, or completely made up. That "distance" provides the wiggle room to become fantasy.

Sure, there are photographs which are staged to be fantasies, but if there are live models, well that is to scary/offensive/disturbing/exciting/palpable.

That being said — if the issue is about "over the shoulder" viewing — Most of my work (shown on LIT) is "scarier" (scarring?) than a lot of nude photos (ignoring any "artistry").

The big question to ponder is about "erotic" vs "pornographic" and that will not be solved. SO either ban ALL nudes (regardless of medium and explicitness) or have a mechanism to hide them discretely.

I like how you have phrased part of the distinction here. And I do understand the distinction when it comes to the issue of posting photos of people here. I just find it surprising and perplexing that an individual who so clearly appreciates certain forms of visual art can completely discount another. I was trying to understand if his bias was only towards erotic photography or towards photography in general. But I do also know that’s not really the purpose of this thread.

 

[LexxRuthless]

Does this mean the ads for the Lit live webcams will be removed from the forums? I'd be down that that. The rest is no skin of my nose.

Those aren't in the forums, on my PC. Only on the story side -- and I can't imagine they would remove their revenue stream like that.

 

[Lotus_Kitty]

The bit in Manu's post about this change being a result of feedback is amusing as hell.

Anyway, I assume this rule won't be applied retroactively? It seems absurd to even think of processing so many illustrated stories and other artwork that contain explicit images.
Whatever the case, I don't see this rule having a significant impact. Literotica is primarily a place for ordinary stories. Illustrated stories, as popular as they can be sometimes, are just a tiny portion of the content here. Hell, Manu even bragged about going over 400 daily stories several times in the last couple of weeks. I wouldn't brag about it.

The mods want it applied retroactively. The want artists to either edit or remove their beautiful explicit artwork. I've not heard from one artist that would want to willingly do that.

 

[Saltfountain]

I can't honestly see how you could make workable exceptions for particular types of art.

Here, for instance, is my new work, in watercolour and graphite. It examines the conscious and subconscious as they coexist within a cold morning shower after a heavy night...

The Hangover

https://i.ibb.co/0Rq3b3qr/pixlr-20250427170501906.jpg

 

[Lotus_Kitty]

I respectfully submit several points against this new policy.

1. Wouldn't it be LESS WORK for the mods to just make a new explicit art category and have artists recategorize their work?

2. People who want to either avoid or view explicit art can both easily do so if there's explicit/non-explicit art sections.

3. All the artists I've communicated with are unhappy about being told to remove their art. They would be much more willing to recategorize it. Several I've corresponded with will leave Lit altogether without removing anything if this rule is implemented. That's more work for the mods and a loss to the community.

4. We have very explicit and graphic depictions of partnered sex in the written and audio sections. Recordings of real people masturbating. But we can't have drawings of masturbation or partnered sex or even genitals? Why are visual artists depicting adult nudity and consensual adult sex being singled out? This is not a consistent application of standards of what is permissible and what isn't.

5. I thought we were an affirming and sex positive community here. We have separate sections for harm fantasies (rape, incest, cheating) but now we won't be allowed to post or view beautiful visual depictions of sexual acts of care? That does not seem sex positive. It does not seem rooted in a harm/care ethos.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

The mods want it applied retroactively. The want artists to either edit or remove their beautiful explicit artwork. I've not heard from one artist that would want to willingly do that.

Yeah, it seems so after all. As I've said many times before, it's their site, so they can do whatever the hell they want with it, right or wrong, smart or stupid.
What I resent though is the bullshit that their decision was made due to user feedback. That's a shameless lie on Manu's part. This here, and in every other thread concerning this change, is feedback as well, and it's overwhelmingly against the proposed changes. They could even do a poll on the forum and see for themselves if they wanted to.
But they don't care about it, and they are using "feedback" as an excuse, which paradoxically isn't something they have to do. They own the site, so they can do whatever they want with it. And I am absolutely fine with that.
It's just the lies that get on my nerves, along with some of the fools who keep putting these two people on a pedestal and argue against anyone who dares to criticize.

 

[Lotus_Kitty]

What does make sense, after thinking this over quite a bit, is that what sets Literotica apart from all the other sites out there is the massive repository of erotic stories. The cash-generating banners are only on that side of the site. This is still pretty much a "mom and pop" business, run by @Manu & @Laurel and they may simply be tired of the headaches of managing the forums. If nudity threatens to derail the entire enterprise, even if it seems like an unrealistic problem to us, they may simply be tired of dealing with it. "Let them go post their nudes elsewhere. It's not what we're about."

I'm not saying I agree with it, or that I am happy about it. Just that it makes sense.

I agree that could well be the case but the owners should say so. Claiming that this is due to overwhelming positive user feedback just doesn't seem plausible to me. "My site, my rules" may be arbitrary but it sounds far more likely.

 

[Lotus_Kitty]

As I've said many times before, it's their site, so they can do whatever the hell they want with it, right or wrong, smart or stupid.
[snip]
They could even do a poll on the forum and see for themselves if they wanted to.
[snip]

I think a user poll is an excellent idea.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think a user poll is an excellent idea.

It is, but if they wanted feedback, they would have done it already.

 

[Saltfountain]

I think we have to move the discussion on...

They have decided, and made their headline announcement that nudity will be banned on the site retroactively from an as yet unspecified date.

What isn't known is how this will work in practice.

Will we be allowed to link nudity hosted elsewhere as long as it doesn't display in the threads automatically as an image?

What counts as nudity?

Is it a straight ban, or will there be exceptions for preferred artistic mediums?

 

[ZfrkS62]

I respectfully submit several points against this new policy.

1. Wouldn't it be LESS WORK for the mods to just make a new explicit art category and have artists recategorize their work?

2. People who want to either avoid or view explicit art can both easily do so if there's explicit/non-explicit art sections.

3. All the artists I've communicated with are unhappy about being told to remove their art. They would be much more willing to recategorize it. Several I've corresponded with will leave Lit altogether without removing anything if this rule is implemented. That's more work for the mods and a loss to the community.

4. We have very explicit and graphic depictions of partnered sex in the written and audio sections. Recordings of real people masturbating. But we can't have drawings of masturbation or partnered sex or even genitals? Why are visual artists depicting adult nudity and consensual adult sex being singled out? This is not a consistent application of standards of what is permissible and what isn't.

5. I thought we were an affirming and sex positive community here. We have separate sections for harm fantasies (rape, incest, cheating) but now we won't be allowed to post or view beautiful visual depictions of sexual acts of care? That does not seem sex positive. It does not seem rooted in a harm/care ethos.

There is a SINGLE mod that wants all nudity banned. Ironically, this particular mod is kinkphobic and yet is allowed to be in control of a sex based forum. If this mood had his way, the AmPics, Fetish, and LGBT boards would be removed entirely. Pretending that every mood wants this is a complete misnomer.

 

[jehoram]

@jehoram, I'll miss this particular avatar: View attachment 2532380

Um... that's me. When I selected it, I carefully followed the rules that were posted on the site:

Legally, we can allow soft nudity, but under current United States law, photographs (does not apply to non-photographic images) posted on this site may not contain “sexually explicit conduct”, which the government defines as:

• Actual or simulated:

1. sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
2. bestiality;
3. masturbation;
4. sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
5. lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

Yes, there's nudity, but it's about as soft as you can get without it being out of focus: no "lascivious" display of genitalia, unless you think that all depictions of genitalia are "lascivious" by definition. These are ordinary people, with ordinary bodies, posing for a picture the way anybody would. They obviously enjoy being nude and exhibiting no shame about it.

But if the picture offends them, please replace my avatar with this one:View attachment 2532741

X.com allows the posting of photographs and illustrations that are more explicit than what you can find here.

X is owned by Elon Musk. I doubt if anybody in the present administration is going to go after anything that Elon Musk has a hand in.

Stuff that is either extreme (like the classic 300-year-old vampire loli), or simply wouldn't pass the miller test.

What is the "Miller test"?

Here's my own take on it: I do like to look at the pictures posted in the various threads, because they're often springboards for the stories I write. There's a certain look on a model's face, a certain thigh gap that I find appealing, a certain come-hither pose that I want to include in a future story. That's why the pictures are an important part of the site... they may not be erotic literature, but they feed it.

I can certainly understand the site owners' reluctance to have such pictures on their servers, but I don't see any legal problem with links to other sites. But ultimately, it's their sandbox and they get to say who can play in it, and how they can play.

 

[SimonDoom]

What I resent though is the bullshit that their decision was made due to user feedback.

I agree. We both know I tend to cut the Site a lot more slack than you do, but this cannot be maintained with a straight face. It's clear from the reaction in this forum that many, if not most, authors oppose this change, and unless I've had a huge memory lapse we were never consulted, and the general Lit readership was never polled, so there is no empirically sound way the Site can say that the "feedback" on this change is net positive. If they're getting pressure from hosts and providers, or they fear such pressure in the future, that's a whole different thing, but that's not what Manu said they were concerned about, so we're speculating about that.

 

[THROBBS]

I can't honestly see how you could make workable exceptions for particular types of art.

Here, for instance, is my new work, in watercolour and graphite. It examines the conscious and subconscious as they coexist within a cold morning shower after a heavy night...

The Hangover

https://i.ibb.co/0Rq3b3qr/pixlr-20250427170501906.jpg

No it is not "in watercolor OR Graphite". Those are filters over a photo.

Which is neither here nor there as far as the new policy goes.

 

[THROBBS]

I respectfully submit several points against this new policy.

1. Wouldn't it be LESS WORK for the mods to just make a new explicit art category and have artists recategorize their work?

2. People who want to either avoid or view explicit art can both easily do so if there's explicit/non-explicit art sections.

3. All the artists I've communicated with are unhappy about being told to remove their art. They would be much more willing to recategorize it. Several I've corresponded with will leave Lit altogether without removing anything if this rule is implemented. That's more work for the mods and a loss to the community.

4. We have very explicit and graphic depictions of partnered sex in the written and audio sections. Recordings of real people masturbating. But we can't have drawings of masturbation or partnered sex or even genitals? Why are visual artists depicting adult nudity and consensual adult sex being singled out? This is not a consistent application of standards of what is permissible and what isn't.

5. I thought we were an affirming and sex positive community here. We have separate sections for harm fantasies (rape, incest, cheating) but now we won't be allowed to post or view beautiful visual depictions of sexual acts of care? That does not seem sex positive. It does not seem rooted in a harm/care ethos.

That seems reasonable.
Though the reason given was accidental "over the shoulder" viewing, which only practically involves visual imagery. < this makes visual different than other mediums of explicit porn (audio and written)