Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

diamondbotanical · 2016-04-30 20:22:42

I'd like to register an opinion to remove the blur from the breasts and/or nipples of affected user videos, as specifically noted in artist 3665's second video. I feel that it plays into the stigma surrounding bare breasts, and rather than focusing attention on the orgasm experience it instead draws the eye towards perceived negativity of bare beautiful bodies. Thoughts from others?

sirgeorg · 2016-05-01 08:53:55

this technical manipulation is attracting even more attention than wanted
either back to the roots of the first days of BA (just the face, no shoulders) or peace and freedom down to the navel (what i prefer, its just natural)
at least: if you keep bluring the female skin below the shoulders, be that logic to blur the skin of all genders

or does it have legal effects for BA to stay natural?

richard · 2016-05-01 23:47:20

Agony's credo is 'the only erotic web site with no nudity' hence the blurring. We regularly crop out breasts when they come into shot but this time it wasn't practical.

JamesGC · 2016-05-02 03:07:05

Fair enough, if that's the standard of the site. There are some noted examples (like 3166) which are very free with the breasts, and I really love the occasional treats like that.
Do agonists say/are they asked how much of their bodies they'd like left in the clip?
Other things aside, for my personal preference I honestly don't know if I'd of preffered the latest two nipplyclips better cropped or blurred; blurring is ugly but the videos are lovely...

JamesGC · 2016-05-02 03:48:11

Also I don't want to be hyper-critical or anything of editorial decisions! But I've been a fan of this site for a long time and an off-and-on member for almost a decade, and this is a change in the format so it bears remarking.

richard · 2016-05-02 05:18:00

We don't generally have conversational contact with them once the videos reach the editors but in any case we wouldn't be asking the question since they would assume any 'wardrobe malfunctions' would be edited out. But yes there have been some slip through over the years - our new editor Steve is more vigilant

JamesGC · 2016-05-06 08:52:58

Well, I would have liked to have seen dear friends 3665's & 77's chests unblurred, but I understand your reasons.
That said I do like the framing in some recent videos, especially in 3687's clip, so I do appreciate the slightly fuller frames there!

penguin6 · 2016-05-06 14:31:35

richard wrote:

there have been some slip through over the years - our new editor Steve is more vigilant

That's not very fair towards Lauren Having said that, I'm also a big fan of the occasional nip-slip!

richard · 2016-05-08 06:34:09

Lauren wasn't the only editor.

Hoonielove · 2016-05-12 08:05:39

For this reason I'm canceling my membership. Hopefully this changes in the future.

steve_z · 2016-05-12 23:43:07

Sorry to hear you feel this way. Our subscribers are extremely important to us, but so too is the privacy of our participants on our website. Without them, we don't have content, so I hope you understand we're looking out for their best interests as well as yours. Hope to have you back at some point in the future.

Hoonielove wrote:

For this reason I'm canceling my membership. Hopefully this changes in the future.

JamesGC · 2016-05-18 15:53:35

Seems silly to cancel over the blurred nipples; previously that clip would have just been cropped, right?

netsmart · 2016-05-20 18:03:57

I can only speak for myself, but I find the blurring and obvious cropping to be very distracting. Personally, I think that there is more integrity and honesty in the videos unmodified than the "no nudity" ideal, which is somewhat hypocritical. There are men's nipples all over the place here, and I'd like to think of this as one of the view adult sites where that sort of double standard wouldn't be welcome.

ranger87 · 2016-05-21 11:30:43

It seems to me like the site is gradually getting away from it's original intent.

richard · 2016-05-22 00:16:26

ranger87 wrote:

It seems to me like the site is gradually getting away from it's original intent.

By adhering to our first principle that it's the only erotic web site with no nudity?

netsmart · 2016-05-22 05:33:13

Well, there is nudity. Male nipples are abundant, reinforcing the notion that men's breasts are just natural body parts and can be shown freely, but women's breasts are dirty and must be hidden.

richard · 2016-05-22 06:34:32

The problem with that argument netsmart, is that it presumes men are mature enough and have sufficient self control to handle a woman exposing her breasts. And many are - but the (unfortunately large) remainder make the "free the nipple" movement a folly. This discussion proves it!

diamondbotanical · 2016-05-22 21:34:43

I'm sorry Richard, I fail to see how a discussion about finding blur-editing more distracting than bare nipples of either gender proves to you that men are not mature enough to handle bare nipples of either gender?

netsmart · 2016-05-24 03:28:56

The presumption that males can't handle seeing a nipple is part of the problem, and the reason things like the "free the nipple" movement must exist.

But honestly, I don't see how thinking the blur is distracting or detracts from the integrity of the original video somehow shows that most men aren't mature enough to see a nipple. The attitude is discouraging. It's the same reason that girls are sent home from school for wearing a tank top - must censor the girls in order to protect the boys from themselves. Meanwhile, shirts off (for boys) at the pool is just fine.

richard · 2016-05-24 05:21:52

netsmart wrote:

But honestly, I don't see how thinking the blur is distracting or detracts from the integrity of the original video somehow shows that most men aren't mature enough to see a nipple.

I didn't say most men, you are misquoting, and you're mis-attributing comments as well.

netsmart · 2016-05-25 03:30:03

richard wrote:

netsmart wrote:
But honestly, I don't see how thinking the blur is distracting or detracts from the integrity of the original video somehow shows that most men aren't mature enough to see a nipple.
I didn't say most men, you are misquoting, and you're mis-attributing comments as well.

Perhaps not, but that's completely immaterial to the point that I was making. "Many," "most," "a few," doesn't matter, the point doesn't change.

richard · 2016-05-25 09:07:34

What about respecting the contributors who signed up for a 'face only' project and for whatever reason didn't realise their breasts came into frame? Aren't they entitled not to have that level of privacy invaded?

netsmart · 2016-05-26 04:25:31

Absolutely. It should never be at the expense of the contributors wishes. But again, that doesn't explain why men's breasts are exposed.

richard · 2016-05-26 05:29:27

Because no man gives a toss whether his nipples are visible or not. Nobody is going to screencap them and send them to their peer group, classmates or workmates. Nobody is going to blackmail them over it. Nobody is going to jerk off over them. Nobody is going to get titilated if a guys's shirt gapes and a nipple is revealed. When every man in the world gets over women's nipples, that's when it will be normalised. It is not women's responsibility to show you their nipples for that end.

diamondbotanical · 2016-06-07 15:19:11

Okay, so a large amount of allegations, misquoting, dodging the question, etc, have occurred here from both members and administrator. We don't need to get pissy. How about in the future editors just consider the distraction of the blur (because honestly, it seems many, like me, have their eye drawn toward it because it is unnatural) and when the choices become crop or blur, perhaps choose crop. It detracts much less from the experience of the contributor and the viewer, in my opinion. Case closed. This discussion was never "show the nipples at any expense!" but instead supposed to be about the distraction of the blur and perceived negativity of natural parts made unnatural. If we can't remove blur from the natural, please just crop instead during the segments the editors feel they can't allow. Thank you.

#1 2016-04-30 20:22:42

Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#2 2016-05-01 08:53:55

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#3 2016-05-01 23:47:20

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#4 2016-05-02 03:07:05

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#5 2016-05-02 03:48:11

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#6 2016-05-02 05:18:00

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#7 2016-05-06 08:52:58

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#8 2016-05-06 14:31:35

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#9 2016-05-08 06:34:09

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#10 2016-05-12 08:05:39

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#11 2016-05-12 23:43:07

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#12 2016-05-18 15:53:35

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#13 2016-05-20 18:03:57

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#14 2016-05-21 11:30:43

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#15 2016-05-22 00:16:26

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#16 2016-05-22 05:33:13

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#17 2016-05-22 06:34:32

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#18 2016-05-22 21:34:43

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#19 2016-05-24 03:28:56

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#20 2016-05-24 05:21:52

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#21 2016-05-25 03:30:03

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#22 2016-05-25 09:07:34

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#23 2016-05-26 04:25:31

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#24 2016-05-26 05:29:27

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

#25 2016-06-07 15:19:11

Re: Blur in artist 3665 Agony 2

Board footer