Feedback on new policy announcement.

[THROBBS]

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.

May not be a total lie. I do suspect that there was unsolicited feedback (ie Karens).

"Squeaky wheels get the grease"

 

[desperado1089]

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.

The person is a troll. Trying to understand their bias is a futile endeavor.

 

[Saltfountain]

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.

Yes, that was my point. I wasn't seriously claiming I drew it

But at what point can people prove whether it's hand drawn or filtered, especially if their style is more naturalistic than yours...

 

[desperado1089]

May not be a total lie. I do suspect that there was unsolicited feedback (ie Karens).

"Squeaky wheels get the grease"

It's still a lie because it is not "overwhelmingly positive." I seriously might not stick around much longer if this actually manages not to get backpedaled because of ACTUAL user feedback AGAINST the policy.

 

[Saltfountain]

It's still a lie because it is not "overwhelmingly positive." I seriously might not stick around much longer if this actually manages not to get backpedaled because of ACTUAL user feedback AGAINST the policy.

I don't think that would bother them in the slightest tbh...

Laurel and Manu are focused on the story side of their site. And they have every right to run it as they see fit.

And seeing as most of the problems and issues reported on the site are from the pics, then why should they want to constantly deal with the shit?

And repeatedly calling a mod a troll isn't going to help your case, is it? JaF0 isn't perfect, will piss people off and will have opinions we disagree with, but who is perfect and doesn't piss people off?

If you're going to criticise people, any people, play the ball not the man. Call out their actions, and quit the fucking childish name calling.

Most people who've posted here want to keep nudity (but not all), but you're looking at a sample size of about 10 people...

They've made their decision. It's done. What we need now is details on how the change will be implemented, not making empty threats that carry as much weight as a crippled dormouse.

 

[THROBBS]

Yes, that was my point. I wasn't seriously claiming I drew it

But at what point can people prove whether it's hand drawn or filtered, especially if their style is more naturalistic than yours...

You said: "Here, for instance, is my new work, in watercolour and graphite."

That is EXTREMELY misleading. You might have said, "Here, for instance, is my new work, Using watercolour and graphite filters." which would be transparent and honest..

At THIS point I can recognize it.
Your argument helps to reenforce LIT's stance, which WAS filtering out photographic nudity and if filtered photos pass as hand drawn/painted images then- chuck it all.

 

[Saltfountain]

You said: "Here, for instance, is my new work, in watercolour and graphite."

That is EXTREMELY misleading. You might have said, "Here, for instance, is my new work, Using watercolour and graphite filters." which would be transparent and honest..

At THIS point I can recognize it.
Your argument helps to reenforce LIT's stance, which WAS filtering out photographic nudity and if filtered photos pass as hand drawn/painted images then- chuck it all.

My post was an example of what could / will happen if people are allowed to post 'proper art' but not photos.

How will people tell the difference easily? I slapped that together in about 30 seconds. I'm sure I could have made it more realistic as 'proper art' if I had spent more time on it.

But it was a sarcastic post to make a point as opposed to a genuine claim to have habd drawn it. That was why I posted the same image filtered in two different ways, to make it more obvious that that was what I was doing. It's also why I tried to make a pretentious explanation of the picture, so people could see I wasn't serious

I don't want the nudity to totally go, but I also get annoyed when I'm told that the art I create isn't valid because I use a camera as opposed to hand drawing.

 

[Lotus_Kitty]

Essentially, if I understand correctly, any image containing nudity cannot be embedded so that it automatically appears when scrolling. It might be more strict than that, if it turns out links aren’t allowed either, but I would be surprised if that’s the case.

This would accomplish what @Voboy is stating, as well, since individuals will choose to click and open images rather than have them automatically display.

Do the mods want to a) not host these images or b) not have them visible unless clicked or c) ban them altogether?

People in the amateur photography threads *want* to see and to display nudity. Forcing us to click to see wouldn’t protect anyone. It would just be a big hassle.

Lit is the only site I found where I feel SAFE and RESPECTED sharing photos. It has been healing for me.

If mods want to not host, ok, but please let us keep linked images that display without a click? Otherwise, what’s the point of nude photo threads?

Same with art threads. We *want* to see and share sexy art on a sex site.

No one is forcing anyone else to look at those pictures. The threads are clearly labeled and people choose to be there or not.

The only non-con nudity I can imagine here is avatars. Why not have a blur filter for nude avatars? The NexusMods site has a blur filter for nude images. Users can enable it or not. A very sensible solution.

I am confused about what problem, if any, the mods are addressing? Hosting issues? Legal issues? Nude avatars (some of which are beautiful and not sexual)? Or is it people complaining about consensual nudity on a sex site when no one forced them to look at it?

 

[THROBBS]

My post was an example of what could / will happen if people are allowed to post 'proper art' but not photos.

How will people tell the difference easily? I slapped that together in about 30 seconds. I'm sure I could have made it more realistic as 'proper art' if I had spent more time on it.

But it was a sarcastic post to make a point as opposed to a genuine claim to have habd drawn it. That was why I posted the same image filtered in two different ways, to make it more obvious that that was what I was doing. It's also why I tried to make a pretentious explanation of the picture, so people could see I wasn't serious

I don't want the nudity to totally go, but I also get annoyed when I'm told that the art I create isn't valid because I use a camera as opposed to hand drawing.

I get what you are saying NOW, but most people have no clue.

And I get annoyed when folk try to pass off imagery as something it isn't.

I am ok seeing filtered photos, so long as the presenter is up front on what it is.
There ARE folk doing precisely what you did as a "sarcastic post", but "sincerely" grifting.

This topic (for me) is less about "validity" as it is about "honesty".

ANYWAY. Let's just find out what the parameters are for the new policy.

 

[LupineOne]

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.

Pretty much where I’m at. It makes sense, especially given this isn’t a site run by a huge team.

Am I still unhappy about it? You bet.

 

[Saltfountain]

Do the mods want to a) not host these images or b) not have them visible unless clicked or c) ban them altogether?

People in the amateur photography threads *want* to see and to display nudity. Forcing us to click to see wouldn’t protect anyone. It would just be a big hassle.

Lit is the only site I found where I feel SAFE and RESPECTED sharing photos. It has been healing for me.

If mods want to not host, ok, but please let us keep linked images that display without a click? Otherwise, what’s the point of nude photo threads?

Same with art threads. We *want* to see and share sexy art on a sex site.

No one is forcing anyone else to look at those pictures. The threads are clearly labeled and people choose to be there or not.

The only non-con nudity I can imagine here is avatars. Why not have a blur filter for nude avatars? The NexusMods site has a blur filter for nude images. Users can enable it or not. A very sensible solution.

I am confused about what problem, if any, the mods are addressing? Hosting issues? Legal issues? Nude avatars (some of which are beautiful and not sexual)? Or is it people complaining about consensual nudity on a sex site when no one forced them to look at it?

It's not the decision of the mods.

The decision has been taken by the site owners, and they haven't given any extra details to the mods yet. They are as much in the dark as we are

 

[Saltfountain]

There ARE folk doing precisely what you did as a "sarcastic post", but "sincerely" grifting.

Exactly!

That's exactly what I was saying. And you won't be able to tell the difference.

So if 'proper artists' are exempt from the ban as some are arguing they should be, how will people stop filtered photos being passed off as hand drawn?

I just don't see how it is possible to make exemptions.

I don't like the change, but it's happening.

I don't believe the reasons so far given for the change, but if they are sincere that it is to stop pornographic imagery appearing on your screen automatically, how can pornographic drawings get a free pass?

 

[AG31]

"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.

View attachment 2532773

I'm afraid I don't understand this bit. It looks like his penis is piercin gher hip. Could you help me here? Before the admins remove your post?

 

[THROBBS]

View attachment 2532773

I'm afraid I don't understand this bit. It looks like his penis is piercin gher hip. Could you help me here?

License.

Transparency.

He is fucking her pussy, from behind and we are seeing what should not be seen.

 

[Cfnmlover84]

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.

Correct. The law doesn't apply to adult nude images. However some red states have banned and/or locked porn sites. It's possible some of the mods/site owners live in one of those states which is maybe why they are doing this new policy of banning adult images.

 

[Saltfountain]

Correct. The law doesn't apply to adult nude images. However some red states have banned and/or locked porn sites. It's possible some of the mods/site owners live in one of those states which is maybe why they are doing this new policy of banning adult images.

But if that was the case, why not just be honest and say that's the reason?

Why give the reason as people not wanting to have nudity appearing on their screens without them actively clicking it?

 

[Coyote100]

The longer l have participated on Literotica, the more apparent it has become that there is a marked dichotomy in purposes for the site. On the one hand, it has become a large and valuable repository of erotic literary works by amateur authors of different levels of talent. It is constantly growing as new writers can share their work and open it to evaluation by others. On the other side, readers can freely post comments on a variety of topics as well as their own images (Yes, nudity) on a real time basis. It is a place where people can have fun, get to know one another, and even become lasting friends without meeting in person. The thing that has differentiated this portion of Lit from thousands of other commercial porn sites is that is it has given users the freedom to post their own pictures. Negative feedback regarding the nude photography most likely is coming from the literary side.

Has any thought been given to splitting Literotica into two separate and distinct websites, each with their own login. If Manu and Laurel choose, they could maintain their control and management of either or both of the websites. One portion would exist under any new guidelines of no nudity while the other continues free to operate under the existing guidelines and restrictions. Of course, there would be individuals who would cross between the two sites, but that could be accommodated. If this is done, there should be no question of inadvertent display of NSFW material unless it is consciously chosen.

 

[Lotus_Kitty]

Exactly!

That's exactly what I was saying. And you won't be able to tell the difference.

So if 'proper artists' are exempt from the ban as some are arguing they should be, how will people stop filtered photos being passed off as hand drawn?

I just don't see how it is possible to make exemptions.

I don't like the change, but it's happening.

I don't believe the reasons so far given for the change, but if they are sincere that it is to stop pornographic imagery appearing on your screen automatically, how can pornographic drawings get a free pass?

The drawings are in their own clearly labeled section. They appear only to those who *want* to see them.

Avatars are seen by everyone but that is fixable with a nude blur feature for them (used on other sites).

If this is about verifying age in photos or avoiding Florida/Texas legal nonsense, ok, but please tell us that as a courtesy.

If @Manu and @Laurel want a text only site like AO3 (lovely site), that’s their right but again, please just tell us that.

And if it is about age verification, why only visual art but not ramblefap audios?

The reasons for this change are unclear. I find it implausible that most users want this when we weren’t asked.

The new policy is very unclear. Can we have links to offsite pics? Will they display or do we have to click?

I get the site owners don’t owe us an explanation but I think clarification would be welcome by users and reduce hassle for mods.

I would be quite sad to see our wonderful visual artists leaving a sex site because they can’t depict joyful consensual sex.

 

[artgasim]

I thought I might weigh in with a few points. Considering I see myself to be a creator, that is of written, audio, and occasionally in the visual art category with sketch/paints. I do have some opinions here so please take them as such, it is just my perspective.

First off, I like Literotica because it’s a one stop shop for me to share my erotic creations with those who may like it. I have found so many talented artists in this little corner of the world and I fear with this clean sweep approach, we will lose out on their contribution to the artistic world.

The answer is in the name “Literotica”. The content on this site contains erotic material, you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t want to read, hear, or view it. A simple solution to the “feedback” pushing this decision is to not visit the website while you’re at work, or at a family function, or at your kids' event.

People will gawk at your screen, it’s just going to happen. These gawkers could easily see text words just as they can nude images. So, be a responsible adult and don’t visit erotic websites when you don’t have the privacy to do so then complain that someone saw you looking at erotic material. It's simple cause and effect so being a moron is a terrible excuse to complain.

I suppose my point here is, it is art. Artistic expression is protected under the First Amendment for Free Speech regardless if someone finds it tasteful or even “good” so the clean sweep they’re proposing feels like a lazy solution. Perhaps giving us the tools to better present the post via tagging would help the audience decide if they should click on the post at all.

At present, whenever I have tried to tag my artwork as I do my written work and audios, the tags never make it to the final post for the audience to use as filters. So my painting with boobs or my male study nude sketch would be a surprise if I hadn’t used the consideration to mention it in the title and short description.

Meanwhile in the audio category, there are VA’s who never tag anything. So we could randomly stumble into an audio which has degrading language, multiple triggers, or even feature a voice who doesn’t know they’re being recorded. There’s just simply no regulation of that space, or at least attention to it. This means we as the audience are on our own to determine if we want to experience it as it’s happening. But yet, the audio is approved with little to no info regarding content within since it's not being babysat. Annoying, yes. But I'm an adult and just move on with my life giving it the grade it deserves due to their laziness.

So the website has its flaws and I get that there's only so many people monitoring and approving all the publishings. Why punish everyone rather than brainstorm a suitable work around, collecting more volunteers within the community to help in the legwork of ensuring site standards are being followed. Essentially, this is our collective space, so the community could be a part of the process.

To just blot out artwork because it has nudity feels incredibly censoring, especially considering we can visit a museum and view a sculpture with a penis or breasts carved from stone. These pieces have been revered as beautiful and works of art, hence why they are being displayed.

If I as the visitor don’t want to see it, I can walk past that section of the museum to something I found more to my taste. This decision is easy for the average adult who understands that art is subjective. Some people see porn, whereas others see art.

So where do we go from here, just wipe it out of existence?

Or do you restructure how it’s done to improve the situation?

Could the managers of the site recruit long standing trustworthy members of the community to act as mods in helping them approve posts and judge if it fits the criteria? Sure they can.

Could they change their posting policies to require proper tagging and a description of the piece being posted so the audience is forewarned about the content they’re about to click on? Absolutely.

We know they can just remove it all, it’s their site so they have the right.

I think the sad part here is that implementing a one size fits all policy is not in the spirit of creativity or the uniqueness of each artist. Those of us who create artwork with our hands, spending our time shading with finger tips and mixing colors for dancing brush strokes don’t deserve this, not when we’ve existed in this space sharing our art with each other all this time.

I feel they could consider some compromise in this area giving the new policy a closer look. This will be a lesser place without the visual aspect of erotica, as stories are not only told through words, but also through visual means.

 

[LupineOne]

But if that was the case, why not just be honest and say that's the reason?

Why give the reason as people not wanting to have nudity appearing on their screens without them actively clicking it?

I think this is one of the reasons I’m as angry as I am.
The seeming lack of transparency and honesty. It screams “corporate greed” to me. Or if not that exactly, that’s the feeling I get, if you catch my drift.

There’s an obvious lack of those two things above, and it’s hurting people’s positive connections with others.
And that matters.
I’ll also say this again: If these rule changes, regardless of the reasons they’re implemented, also do the same, they’re terrible rules. This place has helped a lot of people be able to express themselves. It’s allowed people to feel seen, valued, and feel like they belong when sharing photos of themselves.
M&L may feel they don’t have a choice, and so be it.
But people know where they are and what they’re doing here. Figuratively clutching your pearls and screaming “I don’t like seeing that!” shouldn’t cut it.

 

[Saltfountain]

The drawings are in their own clearly labeled section. They appear only to those who *want* to see them.

Yes, they are. Just as there are clearly labelled sections for nude photos. But it has been very clearly stated that the nudity ban will be site wide, starting with avatars but moving on to the forums and stories

The reasons for this change are unclear. I find it implausible that most users want this when we weren’t asked.

Well, yes and no, depending on if you believe the given reason or not. Unless I misread (which is a distinct possibility) it never said most users. The given reason us very clear. And if it is to remove people accidentally seeing porn in public settings, then I can't see how allowing the hand drawn art (which is often much more graphic than the photos) can be exempt from the ban.

We'll not know until the owners tell people more details

 

[Lotus_Kitty]

Yes, they are. Just as there are clearly labelled sections for nude photos. But it has been very clearly stated that the nudity ban will be site wide, starting with avatars but moving on to the forums and stories

Well, yes and no, depending on if you believe the given reason or not. Unless I misread (which is a distinct possibility) it never said most users. The given reason us very clear. And if it is to remove people accidentally seeing porn in public settings, then I can't see how allowing the hand drawn art (which is often much more graphic than the photos) can be exempt from the ban.

We'll not know until the owners tell people more details

No one accidentally sees graphic images unless they choose to visit threads with them. That was my point.

Edit - Except avatars. So add a blur option for them please.

 

[Saltfountain]

I think this is one of the reasons I’m as angry as I am.
The seeming lack of transparency and honesty. It screams “corporate greed” to me. Or if not that exactly, that’s the feeling I get, if you catch my drift.

There’s an obvious lack of those two things above, and it’s hurting people’s positive connections with others.
And that matters.
I’ll also say this again: If these rule changes, regardless of the reasons they’re implemented, also do the same, they’re terrible rules. This place has helped a lot of people be able to express themselves. It’s allowed people to feel seen, valued, and feel like they belong when sharing photos of themselves.
M&L may feel they don’t have a choice, and so be it.
But people know where they are and what they’re doing here. Figuratively clutching your pearls and screaming “I don’t like seeing that!” shouldn’t cut it.

I genuinely don't believe the reason for this change is corporate greed. If that was the case they would be banning all pics, not just nudity.

My gut feeling is that it's either a reaction to the steady match to Gilead that America is currently undertaking, or due to all the copywrite issues and potential legal issues around revenge porn and posting people without their knowledge.

As @ToPleaseHim said earlier, about 90% of all reports are generated by pictures, so it is obviously an issue which causes the owners a significant headache.

There isn't another site like this that I've found that allows people to explore their kinks and creativity in the same way, and I'll be gutted to lose that outlet. But equally, I (and I suspect most others) don't have the time, ability or inclination to put together an alternative site...

The decisions we have will become clearer when we know how they intend to implement the change

 

[Saltfountain]

No one accidentally sees graphic images unless they choose to visit threads with them. That was my point.

Edit - Except avatars. So add a blur option for them please.

Really? Loads of threads in the Playground or on the General Board have nude pics posted in them where they're not pre announced.

The show your chest thread was closed because guys couldn't stop posting their dicks in it, despite regular and repeated requests for it to stop.

Loads of threads have vague or ambiguous titles that if you don't know the thread don't say that there will be the risk of nudity (mine being one of them)

 

[Lotus_Kitty]

Really? Loads of threads in the Playground or on the General Board have nude pics posted in them where they're not pre announced.

The show your chest thread was closed because guys couldn't stop posting their dicks in it, despite regular and repeated requests for it to stop.

Loads of threads have vague or ambiguous titles that if you don't know the thread don't say that there will be the risk of nudity (mine being one of them)

My apologies then, I stand corrected about that. That has not been my experience but I believe you about yours. However, I think a reasonable solution would be to confine such images to certain subforums and enforce that separation. If that's too much work, ask for more mod volunteers.

And yes, I too think this absolutely is about the US turning into Gilead. It's tragifarcical. Red States are the biggest consumers of porn while at the same time banning and censoring sexual expression.

I wonder if it's possible for the site owners to host on a non-US server? Would they then still be subject to Gilead laws?