hi all i wanna start a mega thread for this sinse its still a minor issue.
I don't want to tick something sensitive and start a fight.
ok i'll start.
https://www.filmo.gs/release/334222-lebendig-gefressen this one on back cover has expossed womens brests and lower vaginal area, i belive it should be classed sensitive. (due to pornographic images)
https://www.filmo.gs/release/334223-lebendig-gefressen i know artist nudity is allowed i just want some 2nd opitions.
https://www.filmo.gs/release/334227-gini-piggu-the-complete-series also want a 2nd opition on this one back image shows a bloody nude women vaginal and brests expossed.
just want 2nd opitions and bring forward anything the community thinks needs sensitive / needs sensitive taken away.
I haven't seen either, but I am familiar with the later series. I would not automatically assume these are "pornographic" in their proper context any more than, say, a Cradle of Filth (or Nigel Pepper Cock) album cover would be on Discogs. They just look trashy and exploitative.
Legally speaking as far as I know, parents, within the privacy of their homes, have the right to expose their kids to whatever films they like, except pornography. It is literally illegal to sell/transmit/broadcast something legally defined as pornography to persons under a particular age (in public or in private). I think that should be the metric used in these cases: "If I let a kid watch this, could I go to JAIL?"
Still, since I've seen neither film, I can't assert that they are not "pornography" in the legal sense of the word. Context clues suggest otherwise, though.
And to circumvent another long discussion, I don't think "torture porn" or exploitation flicks constitute "violence" either. These are almost always entirely staged (save for a handful of known instances of animal harm, which are upsetting but also, frankly, incidental). It's not really fair to compare a horror/trash film to a compilation of authentic beheading videos.
when you put it like that i understand i did not think of it that way.
i think this questin will keep comming up in the future.
This conversation is better held with the contributor of the release itself in the submission notes section. If you think the release should be marked as NSFW then you can do so with your justifying reasons in the submission notes.
It's also worth noting that we see the NSFW checkbox for for content in the submission itself that could be deemed offensive or NSFW (e.g. a pornographic image on the cover of a DVD), rather than the content of the film release itself. It may also be worth reiterating that while the NSFW is a way of filtering sensitive content, we don't accept any content that's illegal to own or distribute (i think beheading videos would fall into the latter category).
It’s going to be very difficult to reach a consensus on all the things that should be considered NSFW and all the things that should not. We’ve had this conversation in the forums quite a few times already without really coming to any new conclusions, which is why using your discretion and communicating directly with the contributor involved is a better route to take.
That said, i would consider the first one NSFW due to the images on the back cover and the other two fine as they are.
thia dosent look sensitive to me.
NSFW - Not Safe For Work?
Why are you looking at filmogs? Quit playing and get back to work.
Do that on your own time. We don't pay you to surf the internet all day. You're lucky you don't get fired.