RE: explicit primary photo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 2:32:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CynthiaWVirginia

quote:

Another question.....
If the mods have an issue with a primary photo, do they send a gold letter or just pull a profile?


No gold note, the primary pic would just be deleted.


I thought you got a gold note from Support. That's how it used to be waaay back in the day, but who knows at this point.

quote:

I was surprised to find out that anus pix were okay, even with butt plugs in them, but that penis and/or scrotum in the primary pic was not. (Mod21 said something about it in the boards a year or two ago when several of us were complaining about a guy with an "impaled butthole" primary pic.)


I've seen impaled and/or gaping bum shots get pulled. Maybe it depends on who's reviewing at the time.

quote:


Well if you had sort of covered it up some, maybe say....with your mouth, it might have been acceptable.


Ahem. No photos of mouth hugs as a primary, please and thank you. [:'(]



TheLilSquaw -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 2:35:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan

Ahem. No photos of mouth hugs as a primary, please and thank you. [:'(]



hehehe at mouth hugs



CynthiaWVirginia -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 2:54:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan


quote:

ORIGINAL: CynthiaWVirginia

quote:

Another question.....
If the mods have an issue with a primary photo, do they send a gold letter or just pull a profile?


No gold note, the primary pic would just be deleted.


I thought you got a gold note from Support. That's how it used to be waaay back in the day, but who knows at this point.



Oops, you're right. I'm so used to seeing people complaining in their profiles that their pic just disappeared...that I assumed there was no note. If there had been a note from Support I ASSumed they would have said so. *bonks head against desk*



tazzygirl -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 3:06:58 PM)

I like your primary photo. Dont see why it would get pulled.



TheLilSquaw -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 3:09:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I like your primary photo. Dont see why it would get pulled.



Thank you. :)



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 3:48:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CynthiaWVirginia

Oops, you're right. I'm so used to seeing people complaining in their profiles that their pic just disappeared...that I assumed there was no note. If there had been a note from Support I ASSumed they would have said so. *bonks head against desk*


Well, see...you ASSumed they were literate enough to read and comprehend the note. We all know how often people actually read things around here. [;)]



UllrsIshtar -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 3:53:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I like your primary photo. Dont see why it would get pulled.


Ditto.

Looks really nice.



SpiritedRadiance -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 3:59:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

I'm pretty sure it is genitalia, gaping holes, and penetration, but I, too, wonder beyond that.




Exactly those are the obvious things but there is a lot of gray area and I don't want my profile to go POOF because of a picture that I don't consider explicit but someone else might.



They send both an email and a cmail explaining that your photo was pulled. What is and isnt pulled is dependent on how many individual reports a photo gets from the report photo button. Clicking report photo 100 times doesnt get a photo removed if its the same person...



TheLilSquaw -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 4:44:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

Ditto.

Looks really nice.


Thank you. :)



PeonForHer -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 4:56:44 PM)

Explicit photos might shock an unwary reader of CM's profiles, TLS. However, the site owners demonstrate their wisdom by understanding, unlike the rest of us, that no such readers will see the frequently explicit pictures to the right of the screen in the adverts. I hope that helps. [:)]



TheLilSquaw -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 5:08:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Explicit photos might shock an unwary reader of CM's profiles, TLS. However, the site owners demonstrate their wisdom by understanding, unlike the rest of us, that no such readers will see the frequently explicit pictures to the right of the screen in the adverts. I hope that helps. [:)]



That's funny but true!



TheLilSquaw -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 5:09:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance



They send both an email and a cmail explaining that your photo was pulled. What is and isnt pulled is dependent on how many individual reports a photo gets from the report photo button. Clicking report photo 100 times doesnt get a photo removed if its the same person...



I wasn't sure about the gold email b/c the one time my profile did go POOF well I had no idea why until a forum member pointed out the TOS violation.



tazzygirl -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 6:26:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Explicit photos might shock an unwary reader of CM's profiles, TLS. However, the site owners demonstrate their wisdom by understanding, unlike the rest of us, that no such readers will see the frequently explicit pictures to the right of the screen in the adverts. I hope that helps. [:)]


Yet, if you check the login page, without logging in, you wont see photos that are sexually explicit, just tits. After logging in, still no sexually explicit photos as I understand the primary photo rule.

If thats sexually explicit to you... lol.. we need to have a chat.



PeonForHer -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 7:51:03 PM)

I remember some woman's dungfunnel pressed against glass, Tazzy. It was part of an ad that lasted a long, long time. A video clip, too.

Me, personally, I didn't much care but - put it this way - I could understand those females who complained about it. I wouldn't like to have a man's hairy khyber pulsating in front of my face upon logging in. Not tasteful while drinking one's morning tea.



tazzygirl -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/4/2013 10:08:40 PM)

I find most women dont mind a tastefully taken nude of another woman. I do tend to see women complain about open gash shots, about cock pics, about cum shots. I see men complain about all that except the open gash shots... lol

Compromise... take down the explicit photos as a primary. As secondary photos, only cum shots seem to get deleted...a nd of course the round of other photos which are against TOS.



TheLilSquaw -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/5/2013 7:38:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I find most women dont mind a tastefully taken nude of another woman. I do tend to see women complain about open gash shots, about cock pics, about cum shots. I see men complain about all that except the open gash shots... lol

Compromise... take down the explicit photos as a primary. As secondary photos, only cum shots seem to get deleted...a nd of course the round of other photos which are against TOS.


A site that is used by those in the adult industry that I am on states that no nude photos can be used as the primary photo. I admit I find that odd because it's used by those in or wanting to be in the adult industry (porn, phone sex, ect). However, I realized they used to say only artistic nudes but like the word explicit the word artistic can mean different things to different people.



Arturas -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/5/2013 9:36:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact




As to others who assumed the primary photo was supposed to be appealing to Doms, from being familiar with LilSquaw and her posts, that wouldn't have been My first assumption that she wanted for the pic. I'd have said that she wanted the pic to be a reflection of something she enjoys and/or something that showed a reality based shot of one of her scenes. Since she does photo/video shoots often, I'm thinking she would like to have that side displayed, rather than it supposedly be used for imaginary 'seeking' when she already has a primary partner.




LP you are totally correct. :)









Sure. But nobody thinks TheLilSquaw is trying to impress a Dom with her picture. I mean look at it.
Hey, what about you-know-who's eyes. They impressed a lot of Doms. Oh yes. This one included.



TheLilSquaw -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/5/2013 10:47:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Sure. But nobody thinks TheLilSquaw is trying to impress a Dom with her picture. I mean look at it.



Awww... what a cute attempt at a personal shot at me.
How adorable.





Lucylastic -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/5/2013 11:22:15 AM)

Just wanted to say....TLS, you look incredible hon!!! Congratulations but then I liked your old pics too:)



DesFIP -> RE: explicit primary photo (6/5/2013 11:23:57 AM)

I didn't realize there was anyone who hadn't put Artie on ignore.

Having unblocked to read his latest, I can tell you it's typical for him to assume that any female not covered head to toe is looking for a twue domly type. Now back to hide.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875