Its art. One of the most famous pieces of Art known to mankind.

the one complaining is an uneducated twat for sure.

and i play in a different gal so no ties.

It's art. No doubt about it.  However the fact is that if it sincerely makes some people uncomfortable (which is fair), you can very easily demonstrate the same idea, or even the same person, with another family picture.  Or add your own flare to the art with a well placed fig leaf.

Not to mention that the family pic rules clearly state that no nudity is allowed, and though that is art, it is also certainly... statuesque nudity

reading this reminds of of an article I read a few years ago. I high school art teacher (in Texas no less) brought her grade 10 or 11 class (I can't remember which) to a museum where there was a replica of the statue in mention. Students told their parents, who in turn complained to school/ school board officials. Less than a week after the field trip, the teacher was fired for showing students 'pornography'.

I say keep it up as your fam pic. People need to grow up and not be afraid to explain to a 10 year old what a penis is, what it does, and when it should be used. Paranoia about sex, and reluctance for parents to openly discuss it, is causing the high percentage of teenage pregnancies.

It's as if nuance is something most people here want to avoid. It's obvious that in no way we want to encourage people to post brutal murder as a fam pic when it's portrayed slightly art-y, or even hardcore rape or whatever with the excuse "it's a form of art".

If you don't want your children to see a picture of the David, might as well stab their eyes out, cause they'll see much more than that when they look around places.
I'd argue more, but my food's in the oven.

"Is Michelangelo's David art, or a depiction of a naked man?"

since when were these two mutually exclusive? it is definitely a piece of art, and a stunning one at that, I even saw it over the summer at the Academia in Florence while travelling around Europe, extremely impressive.

But that doesn't stop it being a naked man. It is against fam pic rules and should be removed arnor. The intent of the piece has absolutely nothing to do with it.

ALL uses of the F word in the forum are banned, whether in a joking or in hateful or sexual use. So it doesn't matter whether the David was created for pornography or as a great piece of art. It is what it is, a naked man.

Cause It Has No Female Boobs In It Duh!!

"that painting"

Oh

My

God

Lets also put up pictures of an "artsy God" ravenously murdering gays then.
Not to mention some civil war art of old white men hanging african-americans.
And a little art of me carefully covering my schlong with 2 fingers and a pouty look in my eyes.

Now, are these the same as David?  No, but they are all just as much a violation of the rules and something that not everyone necessarily wants encouraged.  If I put up a very tastefully done portrait declaring my undying hatred of "[rainbow lollypop]s" it would be quickly removed - which would be the right thing to do - because it's something that some people don't want to see.  So have some respect for people with tighter morals and thought patterns than yours and just take it down.

The issue isn't whether or not it's art, the issue isn't whether or not parents' that don't want their kids to see it are illiterate idiots or not.  The issue is that we have a right to choose what our children are exposed to, regardless of what that might be.   It's still nudity, and you can still very tastefully put up something else.  The issue is your pride and your personal issue with someone making you not want to just grow up - because you didn't put it up to promote education, and I think we all know that.

P.S. - I remember putting up a picture from braveheart of bared bottoms mooning the enemy warriors once, and primo (the person we were in war with at the time) got me a warning and got it taken down based on the nudity rule - this is really no different

jez id like to quote canadian but add a little something:

"People need to grow up and not be afraid to explain to a 10 year old what a penis is, what it does, and when it should be used."

i agree with the fact that ppl need to grow up, but i dont rele think they should explain a 10 year old all about sex
what u have to remember with kids is: u tell them and dont tell them what YOU want, and as long as u bring it decently they will not get obsessed or w/E

if u start freaking out and start saying 'dont use that word' or start making up fake explanations for the word: thats when ur child will start openly discussing that word!

so jez, children WILL come in contact with nudity, offensive stuff and other sex-related things and theres nothing u can do about that!

dont get me wrong, im not saying u dont have to protect ur children!!!

i do realise that a picture like this is rele pushing the rules and i agree that this might be a bit over for some ppl, and thats what this discussion is about
but for me its acceptable

last thing i want to say is: ppl of what age play IC??? i dont think -12 year olds play ic ..., then whats the problem with a fake penis (with wrong proportions, ive seen it in florence and trust me its a small one) ?

Gamer, children are becoming sexuality active at younger and younger ages now. The whole point of Sex Ed (which hardly exists in America in any case) is to educate children, before they start giving each other oral. There was this thing on Oprah once about a 13 and 15 year old have oral sex in the back seat of a bus, while the other kids were egging them on like they were watching a sporting event.

While I approve of young people exploring their sexuality, I admit that 13 and 15 does seem to young for something like this. But the question here is: had they received proper sexual education classes, would they have done something like this?

> [RPA] Lloyd List wrote:

> It's as if nuance is something most people here want to avoid. It's obvious that in no way we want to encourage people to post brutal murder as a fam pic when it's portrayed slightly art-y, or even hardcore rape or whatever with the excuse "it's a form of art".

If you don't want your children to see a picture of the David, might as well stab their eyes out, cause they'll see much more than that when they look around places.
I'd argue more, but my food's in the oven.

--

I think you miss the point here.  It can be legitimately argued that brutal murder or worse can be seen as art.  It's "sick" sure, but if you can interpret one of art's purposes as capturing and evoking emotion, then such pieces would definitely qualify.  The problem is, art is such a personal thing that you can't easily base rules on whether or not something is or isn't art.  That's why it's validity is irrelevant.

Of course you guys don't want to encourage anything that's in bad taste.  Problem is, "bad taste" is not easily defined, which is why we have very clear rules that state 1) no nudity and 2) no pornography.  It takes the guess work out of it all.

The larger issue for me is that it is herein acceptable for a mod to use a fam pic that's in violation in the rules.  To me, that means that said mod has no place enforcing any rules on me.

I don't care about it personally.  It's just a penis ffs, yes grow up whiners.  Still though, I can't ignore that a mod blatantly breaking a very clearly stated rule does cast the integrity of the team in a negative light.  I'm not trying to be an ass either, I love all of the mods and they know this.  It's just there should be no defense of this picture as a family picture in this game, least of all by a mod.

The Nudity rule has always been gray.

For instance, there was one picture of women in a line with their backs facing the viewer. They were painted, but you could still see their cheeks and their cracks.

http://www.feld.com/blog/home/feld/www/blog/images/pinkfloyd_small.jpg

But that was allowed, even though it was in someone's mind nudity (given that some people complained about it). The mods let it stay though, because it wasn't offensive.