"What constitutes pornography on TMP?" Topic

What is the TMP definition?

What do YOU think Pornography IS, or should be, on TMP…Tstrnm???

That would both be a good starting point and might point others to what you may have a particular concern over.

You've opened a can of worms with your vague question and it could end up with a lot of occupants of the Dawghouse, I'm just hoping your statement was unintentional in regards to its current wording and that you might either clarify or correct it?

No good can come from this, except for giving the Lads from Frothers another thing to point at and laugh at. Even now they're wondering whose sock puppet…..

Yep, nothing to see here.

Google says:

printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

I can't believe that this CONTINUES to happen here.

Someone posts something vague…off it goes and twenty people end up in the Dawghouse and it NEVER stops!

TMPers end up in the Dawghouse for breaking forum rules. That is their responsibility. Keep it civil.

I did not go into detail on purpose but as you have asked. I am upset and disappointed to see a picture of a miniature on TMP that shows a woman's bare butt and a view of her privates from behind, except she is wearing a skimpy pair of knickers. I think it is wrong, offensive, and unnecessary. However, I may be in the minority and out of sync with Bill's view of the world. So I seek to ascertain if that sort of thing is acceptable and where is the TMP line being drawn? Hence my succinct question, it's not vague.

Frothers will froth regardless.

Tstrnm…I was not attacking you, but your original question "was" vague, because you just posted the real reason for your concerns…which I appreciate.

I just wish you had done that initially…tis all.

In regards to the Dawghouse…I always do keep it civil, nor do I care one jot about Frother's either, as I am not a member there.

The trick is that "vague" questions and assertions get all sorts of people going for all sorts of reasons and our Dear Editor is known for coming and implementing whatever justice he sees fit to administer, often resulting in several poor innocents getting DH'd, while others who often did post something offensive, going scot free.

I appreciate you coming out in full with your concerns and for now I will just sit back and watch to see if this fizzles out or gets stuck in the mire once more.

What's the saying from Justice Potter Stewart? Paraphrased: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

Lascivious pictures of naked toy soldiers, giving the viewer the unmistakable look that says "come here and paint me, Big Boy?"

OP: Are you referencing Tango's post on the "Nude figure" board?

' I am upset and disappointed to see a picture of a miniature on TMP that shows a woman's bare butt and a view of her privates from behind, except she is wearing a skimpy pair of knickers.'

Was this on thenudes board?

If so, and you object to it – WHY WERE YOU THERE?

You see it and it hurts you, I don't see it as I don't open these links, not because of shock but as uninterested.
Just don't open them. Hummm?

Like these offended crowds when some , usually obscure film or book, criticise their religion, believes, knickers, chocolate tastes, wallpaper etc. just don't buy, don't look, ignore it, you will feel better, not waste time and allow those who relish on it… To be free to do so.

Quite right too! There is no place for offensive skimpy knickers on the nude figures board!

Anything with Sean Connery in a red strap like outfit…you all know what I'm talking about! :)

I can't believe that this CONTINUES to happen here.

Why not? What could possibly go wrong?

I am upset and disappointed to see a picture of a miniature on TMP that shows a woman's bare butt and a view of her privates from behind, except she is wearing a skimpy pair of knickers. I think it is wrong, offensive, and unnecessary.

Normally, such a picture should be categorized as "adult," which would make it unviewable unless you had the adult filter turned off.

The nudity and semi-nudity are carefully marked, and can be avoided by setting preferences accordingly. I note without comment that wildly exaggerated male musculature accompanied by a fur jockstrap is not regarded as nudity or semi-nudity and that it elicits no complaints. (For that matter, a lot of the recent examples of semi-nude figures don't look even vaguely human, which ought to count for something.)

But there are other things going on on TMP--things which are just flat unnatural, and hard to filter. I mention a few:
--Diceless wargames.
--Roster systems.
--Franchise games in which the creator of the rules invents and copyrights the combatants.
--Multiple editions
--Games with separate rule books, theater books and army books.

Do we really want children coming to TMP to be exposed to this sort of thing? To think this is the sort of people we are?
Instead we're diverted into discussions of how much clothing our miniatures should wear. They should wear enough to make it clear which side they're on and what movement rates and morale and combat modifiers apply.

The problem with that definition is the word "intended" – that means that in order to determine whether something is pornographic you have to be able to read the mind of the creator.

When Googling any female name (or nearly anything, really) will get you plenty of examples of the real thing, pictures of tiny metal or resin sculptures rendered with an occasionally dubious knowledge of the human form and painted at widely varying levels of skill are a pretty poor substitute. And Bill makes you jump through a hoop or two to even see that.

This is about images YOU had to look for, set your account to see at all, and which are easily removed from your experience by your own choice. If Bill had put scenes from Caligula in the front page banner you might have a legitimate argument, but that is not the case.

I don't know about y'all, but my holy book says man was created in God's own image, and woman was created from man, in essence woman was created from God's own image. That man and woman did a bad thing and knew shame of their bodies, but I have been baptized to remove that original sin.

So I have no shame in appreciating the bodies made in God's own image and from God's own image. It seems fairly Satanic to me to deny the beauty of these bodies.

Post adult miniatures to the relevant board and do not post any real life adult pictures to TMP at all and you shouldn't have any problems…..if your unsure if the picture is okay, contact the Editor for a decision.

If you go onto the NSFW board and find something offensive, contact the Editor. But it seems like you should expect to see at least partial nude miniatures on this board since its stated in the boards name. You can of course remove the board from your viewing options….unless you cannot help yourself if it posted to multiple boards.

I think the NSFW board is actually doing a good job in that I've never seen anything elsewhere on TMP that breaks any rules about this…..so its usually contained and if you want to see the miniatures you can and if you don't they aren't popping up randomly on the other boards.

If your complaint is the Stripper girl topic, well its a terrible miniature and I'd rather not of seen it.

Maybe a step to far, but my main complaint is that its a terrible miniature.

I am upset and disappointed to see a picture of a miniature on TMP that shows a woman's bare butt and a view of her privates from behind, except she is wearing a skimpy pair of knickers. I think it is wrong, offensive, and unnecessary.

The definition is the problem…given what you state above, you would be offended by art since the time of the Renaissance, and by sculptures going back to ancient Greece. Your question was about "pornography" but it would be hard to force your example into pornography. If you're offended, don't look, and don't visit the Louvre.

What Winston have said…

Hi Frothers!

Amicalement
Armand

Well said Raylev3.

Clearly, The Sea That Raged No More, equates nudity or even partial nudity with pornography. I would suggest you turn your adult filter on so you can avoid being offended by miniatures you do not approve of.

Yes, indeed, as you mention, I can choose to visit whatever Message Board I like and avoid others, just as I can choose to listen to whichever individuals I wish too. And, of course, I'll find nudity on the Nudes Board and I'll judge the miniatures accordingly, as I often have. I have no issue with that. My choice. Understood.

However, what I saw I think was the thin end of the wedge (no pun intended). The miniature in question includes a photograph of a female (as previously described) taken from an angle that sexualises the miniature and may have contravened the TMP pornography rule. It is not that the miniature is nude, not at all, it is that one particular photograph is sexually graphic. From the other photographs the interested party will know what to expect from such a figure. Therefore, does it need to be shown on TMP from the said angle and is it pornographic?

I have now ascertained the TMP definition and can perhaps see where this may lead. If such photographs are to be permitted here then I for one am disappointed and saddened as it demeans what is an excellent website. But forewarned is to be forearmed and I can take steps to avoid it in future.

Frothers? I hear it is an unpleasant website so I don't go there!

It is not that the miniature is nude, not at all, it is that one particular photograph is sexually graphic… If such photographs are to be permitted here…

Did you hit the Complaint button? It is quite possible that nobody on staff has even seen the picture in question.

"…taken from an angle that sexualises the miniature ….." Perhaps some people need to try another hobby?

I'm offended on behalf of all inanimate lead objects, I can't believe we have the temerity to assign them gender, let alone sexualize them.

I would think that if some is offended by something on TMP the best thing to do is to hit the complaint button and complain to the people who make the decisions about what is okay and what is not; rather than ask the membership as a whole. That just seems to be Dawghouse bait.
Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Bunkmeister +1

Agreed that the ownership/editioial staff are the only ones who can actually do anything about it. The public teeth gnashing and hand-wringing often has the opposite effect than what is desired.

I have to agree with Fox, again …

Several members have asked me if "The sea that raged no more" is a troll account.

I can tell you that he signs in and out of his account multiple times in a day, which suggests this is perhaps not his regular account. On the other hand, maybe he accesses TMP from a public library?

I know that his IP address traces to an "unusual" country, which could mean he is using IP-spoofing (which could be a sign of a troll). Or maybe he's visiting or working in an unusual country?

He has changed his membername multiple times. Previous names include The Shepherds of Lies, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, Hey Joe, Blue Dalek, Pink Dolores, Showdown, Nothing worse than second spot, Nothing better than second, Richard Cory, Richard Cory went home tonight, Richard Cory went homeone nite, MOST STIFLED Silver Medal, Gone to Texas, MOST STIFLED Bronze Medal, heyjoe, One After 909, Madman Across the Water, This space is to be kept free, RESERVED pending approval, Haloween Jack, Blues 4, Blues For Baby and Me, etc. These are not sock puppet accounts, just name changes on a single account. This could be trollish behavior, or just eccentricity.

However, he has provided an email address for the account, and the address appears to give what might be his real name. Trolls don't usually do that. Of course, the name could be false.

So – is he a troll? Inconclusive.

Foxweasel quoth: "I'm offended on behalf of all inanimate lead objects, I can't believe we have the temerity to assign them gender, let alone sexualize them."

Right. We'll be over with our propane torch to de-sexualize all your minis. Have your fire insurance up to date.

😁🚒

Frother….

Amicalement
Armand

Indeed …

I will admit to being offended by the miniature. Not the subject, or even the concept, but by the execution. It was not a great sculpt.

Topic is plainly marked, don't like it, don't go there. End of story ! BOOM

I've never see any miniature I'd consider pornographic, and if you have. Where they heck are you looking?

Over the years I have seen some 'so-called' pornographic miniatures, but they are rare. Germania Figuren produces several sets of couples in 1/72 scale having sex in various poses.
link
I believe Excalibur, another German company also had some 28mm miniatures in various sexual poses (again these are couples so there is no doubt about what they are doing). Monolith Models in the USA, which produce 32mm resin models. They have a sub range called the Grass Labyrinth: Shibari and Kinbaku, which are Japanese geisha girls in various bondage poses that are quite overtly sexual.
link
There is also another company called Barely Legal Miniatures which has appeared under a couple different guises over the years. They produced some really weird comical 28mm miniatures, a woman covered in boobs, another chained to a post whose body was a pair of boobs and a big butt. But Barely Legal also had some pretty explicit hard-core sex stuff that was most definitely pornographic. Ive heard of a couple other companies that have made sexually explicit figures and seen some in private collections but they are rare. Nothing I've seen on TMP even comes close to these miniatures

I was away running the Weekend, and I came back, saw this,and backed out like Winston. Nothing good came come of this.

F- is the rating.

Otto

I haven't heard Of old Barely Legal in a while. Some of the stuff was so over the top I figured the guy had mental health issues. The Liberal Rage Cage would pass out if they ever clicked on that crap..

I'll freely admit I find most of the female figures made by someone called, IIRC, Brother Vinni or "something or other"(?). I find those pornographic, obscene, and very disturbing. So I avoid that type of thing.