Should nudes be allowed in Portrait threads?

[Kirk Gittings]

How about simply starting a Nude Portrait thread?

I could personally care less, but I also respect other's beliefs and problems so I voted no. But I think Merg has the answer.

[cowanw]

Part of the difficulty here is that Nudes are an integral part of the large format legacy and oeuvre. It would not be a surprise to see a DOF question illustrated by a nude or indeed any thread having a wee bit on display. It is not practical to segregate nudes although this reminds one of the old separate but equal concept. You can have your own thread (or bus seats, water fountains) and we will all not be forced to look. Sadly, it is still OK to segregate women. I do get very hot under the collar about this, partly my job and partly just me.
The other part is the Philosophy that the female nude needs explaining. I am less thrilled with wet plate images or portraits with out of focus ears; but there is no case for me to demand a separate thread so I am not forced to look at them or explain to the airport hangers on or the 11 year old or my co workers why the ears look so funny.
But it is the case for some repressed bits of our culltures, That the female nude is inherently lewd,questionable, requiring justification. That we should be protected from it specially as it may corrupt. Deep down this is a leftover of misogyny, that there is something bad about this.

Almost all of the objections to the nude so far are not personal, but that there are worries about how other non users of the LFPF will persieve evil.
Some countries are way more hung up about sexuality than others. This sort of self censorship for fear of recrimination is to be viewed with sadness.
The only honest option to my mind is to identify the entire site as not safe for work.
I just scrolled through the front page "portrait lens " article ACH! a nude

[Corran]

airport hangers on or the 11 year old or my co workers why the ears look so funny

Come on, classic straw man, this is irrelevant.

[Doug Howk]

When you can't show an Ed Weston image in a large format forum because someone may take offense, then this site becomes more of a gear site than a photography discussion site. And there are too many gear sites already.

[Kirk Gittings]

True also. This is not an easy question.

[Corran]

can't

No one said (or wants I think) to ban nudes altogether.
Just keep them in a well-marked area.

[Leigh]

This is not an easy question.

It's a very easy question.

Post a note that the thread/sub-forum may contain nude images.
People who don't wish to view same can simply avoid it.

If we ban everything that might offend anybody, we'll be left posting breakfast menus (and being criticized for doing so).

- Leigh

[Kirk Gittings]

a sheet of HP4+ over easy with a side of developer and fixer.........

[cowanw]

Come on, classic straw man, this is irrelevant.

"here are a myriad number of reasons that one would be looking at this site and not want to be surprised at a nude- at a public library, at the airport, on your phone at any time, at home with your family, at your office (on break, of course), at school, etc."
The 11 year old quote has dissappeared
A straw man is usually brought up and taken down by the same poster.
If previous posts are being responded to which have referenced the issue, then i don't accept you proposition
Indeed the straw man post is the straw man post.

[Corran]

Bill, you are misidentifying what I'm calling a straw man.

NO ONE cares if you are looking at a portrait with OOF ears. This site will not be blocked from school/work computers because of OOF ears. That point is irrelevant (and I highly doubt ANYONE would actually ask about OOF ears).

NUDITY is what will get things blocked. I've already been on various public WiFi access points, like at restaurants, that had this site marked as pornographic.