Want to get rid of the annoying adverts? The answer is simple. There are 4 levels of advertising on AnimeOTK:
Level 1: (Your Level, guests and members with 0-9 posts) has maximum advertising. Level 2: (A user with 10 or more posts who has been a member over two weeks) have vastly reduced advertising (including removal of the large full screen closable adverts) Level 3: (A member who has been registered over a month and has over 50 posts, or has a special account like "artist" or "writer" sees minimal advertising. Level 4: (VIP Donators) receive no advertising.
All donators of $10 or more will never see an advert on our site again!
This is a good pic, but it would have been better if the nether regions have been censored; not a fan of seeing child's things. But it's still good as Lilo is such an underrated spankee! However I have two questions;
Whose spanking her?
Where the hell are her panties?
Don't know who the spanker is (artist says the spanker is a character described to them by the commissioner no name given), however as to her panties? Lilo not the type of girl to be slowed down by panties, she the type to say he dress is enough to count 8)
Also a quick look at the rules doesn't seem to point out anything wrong the the uncensored nature of the pic. Nudity is not inherently sexual so it doesn't really qualify as that.
That's not why we're saying her butt is poorly drawn. It's just some of us rather like to have more curvature of the butt crack than exposure of the private part, especially on a child character. It's certainly not the worse I've seen, there are too many spanking pics where the pussy is unnaturally exposed and larger along with the butt hole, and barely any butt crack to appreciate.
Honestly, folks, I usually don't take sides with this. Everyone that knows me knows I'm not prudish, and knows I don't have a weak stomach. I can discuss Diaspora in the forums with the best of you, and I can assure you that I'm as un-prone to kneejerk reactions and making contentious points on pictures based on moral high horses or excessively easily triggered sensibilities, like a lot of people that tend to crawl out of the woodwork when this stuff appear.
That said, I REALLY don't understand, from a purely pragmatic point of view, what do we earn from having full on-display naughty child bits allowed by the rules on site against the risks taken. Other sites that deal with children and varying degrees of nudity, like Pigtails in Paint, have already faced issues and court action for comparatively much tamer material, which would not be construed as sexual:
Sure, we can argue from here to Kingdom Come about the limits of moral, censorship, freedom and the right of everyone to fap to absoutely everything under the sun no matter how edgy. But seriously, open question to anyone... having weeded out 99% of the truly noxious and downright predatorial people who prowl sites of our kink, and created a safe, mostly clean and fun long-standing community, is having Lilo Vajayjay SO UTTERLY VITAL for you as to risk getting into the radar of people prone to going to institutions who won't give us even the benefit of doubt?
If your answer is "yes", I have nothing more to say. If it's not... well. I think it's worth thinking, in pragmatic terms if not anything else.
@ Leonid;
The answer to your question is 'No, but...'
From the legal point of view, none of us are lawyers, as demonstrated by the fact we're post about law which no lawyer would ever do. Law where, where you live, where I live, where the server is hosted?
You said it yourself, tamer material has seen prosecutions, easily 2/3rds of the images on this site are prosecutable in Germany which has very strict laws about adult, licensed porn on legitimate adult websites and stricter ones about private ones. I wouldn't get worked up about this one image on that basis when there's 40,000 more on this site that's equally as prosecutable in pretty much every jurisdiction - that is reactionary I'm sorry to say, just because this image is on the front page - it's not unique at all on this site. Rare, but far from unique.
As has been noted, it's not rule-breaking.
I'm fine with someone uploading a blanked version, I agree that there's no burning need for it to be explicit and I'm happy to proceed with a working compromise as opposed to outright removal just because it's had a lukewarm reaction from some people and a negative one from one or two others.
Nudity is not, as has been said, inherently sexual.
We can't run this site on the basis of what happened in Germany in 2013 or we might as well just close now. Hell, we have members from Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain and Pakistan here... can you even imagine?
I partially agree with leonid. It really feels like it's being accentuated in the picture, even if it wasn't the artists intent. I don't think this picture in particular is worth being censored, but there should some line drawn at some point especially with characters as young as this.
In response to RobM, I don't think this picture in particular has had any impact regarding this topic, but no one is going to post a comment on some picture uploaded 2+ years ago with content they find questionable and expect a response or an argument. Since it is on the front page, maybe the community should take this opportunity to address this issue instead of just ignoring it until the next instance. Even if there is no legal implications, do we want art like this to be featured on the site? I do value artistic freedom, and I am against censorship typically. But we can't ignore that most people visit this site for their fetish and that most of the time spent on this site is for people's own sexual gratification.
@Bagool
The answer to your queries are "Yes, But..."
I assure you that there's a lively and informed debate happening in the mod section at the moment and community feedback as received is being considered. Do I want pictures like this featured on the site. Personally? Not especially, no. Generally? We already have loads. The reason I highlight it's an issue because it's on the front page and because it's a trending topic on the site... is because that's exact it. One picture like this passes through the site a month on average often spammed off the front page so quick it's not noticed. This picture is not exceptional in content and is receiving a disproportionate and uncommon reaction. One which I'm trying not to be seen to dismiss.
As to censorship, I disagree that the genitals are the focus of the artists intent. Except as a nod to anatomy I don't think they're key to his or her vision. I'm fine with someone uploading an alternative I haven't and won't do it myself which is a weak way of washing my hands of it, I agree. Their removal, while a controversial option, is just a suggestion.
I'm not actually trying to be front-and-centre myself of this as I don't particularly see myself as a leading voice in the protection of this image, trust me when I say I've spoken up quite strongly in the private discussions that the image is not rule-breaking and that I'm against it's removal on general principal for that reason but I do have to heed when concerns are being raised from many quarters. I suggested a form of compromise, it's not a ruling.
I would however caution against throwing the sexual gratification out there. I feel it's safer to say that everyone visits the site for their fetish and that most of them do so for sexual gratification. Not all. There is a big crowd of Little's and others here for whom this is separate from sex. There's more than one of them in this thread so please lets not marginalise or disparage them.
The debate on this picture is entirely down to one solitary, slightly-curved black line. I don't think it's addition makes this a sexualised drawing and changes everything about it.
I would tend to side with RobM; I agree with Komuro's artistic criticism, but morals wise, there are a lot worse pictures that I would be inclined to pull before pulling this. Mere depiction of the privates is not, in itself, a problem.
From the legal point of view, none of us are lawyers, as demonstrated by the fact we're post about law which no lawyer would ever do. Law where, where you live, where I live, where the server is hosted?
Doesn't matter. As you might have noticed, the site isn't even hosted in Germany, where the claim came from. The thing you miss here is that regardless of regular law, there's the additional "law" layer of the ISP and hosting company not wanting to get in trouble and taking down sites or sending cease&desists.
Quote:
I'm sorry to say, just because this image is on the front page - it's not unique at all on this site. Rare, but far from unique.
Old agadge of my mother: "If you do something wrong and three other people are doing it, you don't have a "somewhat right and accepted thing". You have four people doing something wrong"
And trust me, I know about those pics skirting the rules. This one at least has the benefit that it doesn't look like it was made when a baboon stuck a crayon on its ass and then had an epileptic fit while sitting on drawing paper, as most of those do.
But it keeps piling up, is the thing. So, isn't it actually better, if we agree on this point, to actually try to do something than saying "neh, we're too far gone, let's just keep them coming". What's the worst it could happen? That too strict a ruling could keep some potentially more risque content out of the site? No great loss, IMO. And if someone does consider it that way, I think we're frankly better off without that someone.
Not even because it bothers me, see. I personally am pretty much undaunted by anything at this point. I just think in purely cynical terms, and I perceive the balance of risks taken vs bebfits earned to be off-kilter enough to mention it and try to regulate it a bit more. This site could have all of its front page filled with underage p**** and c*** for all I care. I'd have that over a jhonon's flood any day of the week.
I pretty much don't see this as a very big problem; it does not, IMHO, qualify as pornography. And as Rob said, there are plenty of people who have personal interests other than sex.
Now, if we were talking about removing explicit depictions of intercourse, yes, I am all for that. Those do need to go, IMHO. If the mods took a broad approach that banned all depictions of genitals, then that would be understandable. But to ban this kind of depiction while leaving more explicit depictions online would be screwy, (pardon the pun).
@Leonid,
Well, you're the one who brought up a link to a case in Germany, interesting to see you dismiss your own evidence as 'doesn't matter.' I hear what you're saying and please don't think I'm pedantically dismissing you, the thing you missed in turn was where I said there's 40,000 more images that equally match the criteria for any and all laws you brought up and this one picture makes no odds either way. They're not as extreme to us but to any conservative (and even most liberals) 2/3rds of the images on this site would be prosecutable in many jurisdictions if they chose to hammer you with it.
Believe you me, they would see no difference like you do, they would hate it all. Simply changing the context of the law you're worried about doesn't change the outcome of that.
It's an interest adage and I agree with it, I've never tried to be a slave to the tyranny of the majority otherwise this image would have been gone ages ago. Where it sadly doesn't line up is that, as I have pointed out, the drawing doesn't break our rules. So you haven't yet got 'four people doing something wrong' as none of them are breaking rules, so to speak.
You've instead got four people doing something that makes you personally uncomfortable, your views are valid but that doesn't mean they have to stop.
As to it piling up, well... it did previously. We used to have less strict policies on Loli's and shota's and frankly we had too much extreme content. Dr. Weird and I went on a week-long purge quite some years ago (and you've been on this site long enough I believe to remember it) removing several hundred, if not over a thousand images from the site permanently.
That was a decision that DID cost us a few members and while I wouldn't say the community was better off without them, we certainly have benefited being without their content.
It's was not a policy change we made lightly or flippantly and it's not one I'd shirk from again if necessary... I just don't see it here and I'm not alone in this.
Well, I would agree that the girl's 'genital exposure' could have been avoided by the artist via a slightly different angle of view and/or merely having her thighs pressed together tightly--however, he/she presumably had a reason, possibly even simple realism, for not taking that approach.
The spankee's buttcrack disappearing at the middle point of her rear end though, I don't find that very realistic... --C.K.
