2017-05-23

Really, a clearer definition of "adult content" would be very useful and appreciated. When an artistic nude picture without any sexual connotation and showing no private parts at all is deleted, and an ugly porn picture showing a guy with an obvious boner, although he's wearing his trunks, is not (it's still there, in another gallery I had the misfortune to spot), it is quite confusing and makes everything much less fun.

2017-06-02

Only safe-for-work content is allowed.. & some nude or "edgy" poses are=nsfw a/c and therefore in violation of the sponsor's guidelines (who run $ this site)

2017-06-02

Yeah. I liked it a lil better, when the "raunch" was allowed... to an extent.

2018-10-13

Good comments. I do think it is and will always involve subjective criteria and that most nebulous thing, taste. But even so, it shouldn't be so hard. Not hard, that is, for the admins of a site like this to apply. Hard to make work when users are applying them, because most of them will make up their own rules and apply those, actual criteria be damned. So I hate to say it, but one boss for these decisions, versus a democracy, is probably the only thing that could ensure consistency and clarity.

2018-10-13

😍🔥

2017-05-20

Justified

2017-07-17

You're right ! sorry for the duplicates

2015-04-28

@Grik, Anna Ewers is the girl on the right, no idea who her buddy is though.

2016-04-19

Juliana schurig

2016-04-19

@Grik ...compliment for the compliment !

2015-04-28

It's all good @ilf ;)