BenOWillockFeatured By OwnerDec 16, 2013Hobbyist Digital Artist
"A member of staff has reviewed this work and has determined that it does not meet the standard for automatically requiring a Mature Content Tag." So please tell me what DOES a devation have to have to be "Mature Content" if not an almost completely naked woman? I have mature content turned off specifically because I DONT want to see this. Not cool dA, not cool
AutumnPockyFeatured By OwnerDec 17, 2013Student General Artist
The naked human body is a very beautiful thing and deserves to be painted/drawn and admired for the beautiful sacred thing that it is. Children should be taught at a young age that the human body is not automatically a sexual object to be ashamed of, they should be taught that it's a beautiful thing that they should admire like a hand or an eye, without being immature about it.
I will have to agree this is somewhat fetish related looking artwork and should have a filter, I wouldn't call this an artistic nude and this is definitely not a nude picture that I would show my children if I were trying to teach them how to admire and respect the human body. ;I
I have to disagree. A graphic depiction of debasement and personal horror? Yes. However, the debasement and personal horror, to me, rips it from pornography. Now, if you'd like to discuss whether graphic depictions of debasement and personal horror deserve mature content ratings for their own reasons, then I think we have a good discussion point.
The fact that some people find it erotic is irrelevant. Some people find the Chipmunks erotic (scary, scary thought). This image may generate a deep experience in the viewer, but to me it's literally describing "naked hate." I don't see anything pornographic about it.
if the figure was completely naked i would agree, but in the way it is presented, it strikes me as pornographic because of certain aspects. for instance, it is unclear if the figure is wearing a skin colored bikini with an X or just straps in the shape of a bikini and an X to cover the nipples. i think that they either intended it to be unclear or failed to make it so. by the way, this is all my opinion just from my point of view. i have no idea how many other people share my opinion and i'm not trying to present this as a "this is how it is" but rather as a "this is how i see it."
i don't see how the chipmunks could be erotic, seeing as how they are animals and don't even have the parts that might make them seem erotic XP
Well, of course we're discussing opinions. We each have them and have reasons for holding them. I know I've come off in a bad way in the past, so let me say that I don't think you're an idiot. Your opinion is intelligently formed. I just think you're wrong. It's not as though you being wrong will bring great wrong upon anybody. (Or me being wrong, for that matter.)
The ambiguity of the appearance is part of its uncanny nature - it's familiar and foreign at the same time. If the image resolved more clearly, I would think it would have a stronger sexual image. As it stands, there's little agreement as to whether or not we're looking at flesh or plastic, let alone whether the material is clothed or unclothed. As you say, for all we know we're looking at a plastic doll midway rescued partway through the process of boiling, and the clothes were simply painted on.
About the Chipmunks: You can count yourself lucky for having avoided certain parts of the Internet that I've accidentally stumbled into. Trust me when I tell you that you do not want to follow in that browsing history.
i understand. basically my opinion of these things follows the same rules: anyone can do anything they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights. and i see this as infringing on my right not to look at a woman without bottoms on. i don't know if that opinion makes me a naked hater, but if i am, so be it.
i'm just going to say that if this were my art, i would just leave the doll unclothed. the fact that she has some kind of top/bikini or whatever but no bottoms of any kind bothers me. but as i said, i don't care what they do or draw, that's their business, i just wish they would mark it, so no one that finds this disturbing or scarring has to see it.
i've seen some very disturbing things in google images, but never of the chipmunks. the reason for that is probably that i stopped using google images the day i stumbled upon- well actually i'm not going to share exactly what it was, but it was a character from my childhood and it was scarring.
by the way, you are fun to debate with. if you haven't studied debate in some way, you are a natural.
AutumnPockyFeatured By OwnerDec 17, 2013Student General Artist
I'd have to disagree about it being porn, it's only representing sex and sexual feelings, while there is no actual act of sex taking place in the image. It's representing the feeling of sex and fetishism the same as people represent sadness or anger or happines etcetc in art.
But it should probably have a mature filter because not everyone is comfortable viewing/expressing sexual feelings/thoughts publicly. >.< Sex, unlike the other feelings of the human person, is something that is very touchy with most people and can cause a lot of harm to people who aren't comfortable with viewing it in this manner.
People need to learn to respect each other... that's the whole point of the mature filter, people who like it can see it if they want to, people who don't like it don't have to be tormented with it always floating in the corner of their eye. The mature filter isn't some kind of "no you're sick and dirty" stamp, it was made to make peace between people who like this and don't like this, and it makes me angry that people don't use it properly or respect people. Not everyone is into this kind of stuff, and the people who aren't into it can often be harmed emotionally by seeing it, while I'm pretty sure the people who are into it won't be affected by having to click a stupid extra button to see the art they enjoy.
thank you for writing all that. i understand this subject better now. i do want to say though, that if i ever marry someone, if they ever looked at something sexually explicit on purpose even before they met me, i would consider it cheating on me. but everybody has a different opinion and (provided they're 18 or so) are entitled to their own decision, and i respect that. as long as it's not my soul-mate XP
is it weird that i really enjoy debating stuff? XP
oh and for the last paragraph, i don't think it's a "you're dirty" stamp, i just think it's really exactly what it's called. someone needs to judge their own maturity, and of course they need maturity to judge it correctly, which is why NC-17 material falls under mature. that is all. i think.