After my polite request to the administration here to review my Bizarro Barbies in light of the Dec 2007 policy change allowing sexually themed humor, the response I got was a one liner stating the logs said the photos were pulled for their sexual overtones, so they wouldn't be reinstated. Not that the admin bothered to look at the photos in question, just that the logs said that, so screw it. I sent the following in response:
To: [name redacted to protect the guilty]
I'm not sure if my last message went through, cause everything disappeared and I have no record of either your original response or my reply after I hit send, so I'm trying this again. I noted in your message that you said "the logs" indicated my photos were pulled for sexual overtones and so they won't be reinstated. This leads me to suspect you did not actually look at the photos in question, only the logs connected with them.
I know they were pulled for that reason originally, however the policy change from December 2007 states Adult Content can be flagged appropriately for "Sexual Themes" which includes "References to sex or overt sexuality, including sexual based humor. This does not mean you may submit sexually explicit or pornographic images." The images in question are Barbie Dolls posed together and are not pornographic. They show less detail than the artistic nudes allowed on the site, and one of them is merely sitting on a couch in a bikini. So I'm not understanding how Barbie Dolls posed together (with sexual references, but obviously humorous intent) violates the current policies that allow sexual themes (wouldn't "sexual overtones" be sexual themes?). If they are flagged to indicate that they are sexually themed and minors can't even see them, I don't understand how there is a problem.
If you haven't actually looked at the photos, can you please review them and then explain how they violate the policy as updated in December? If you cannot see them, I have links to them here: www.flickr.com/photos/lady_els…
. All the ones except the Shishka Barbie and Barbie Kebabs shots are the ones I'm referring to. I have moderated on other sites, so this isn't a question of just wanting to flaunt the rules--I'm actually pretty anal about following rules myself, and I understand that judgement calls need to be made. But I never in a million years thought that a bunch of Barbies posed together would be deemed explicit enough to be pulled off an art site, so I'm just trying to understand how they don't work with the current policies in place.
Thank you for your time,
Predictably, the admin in question ignored my request to actually view/review the photos. So I'm done. dA is really deviant alrighty. And they definitely care about art, sure. If you do a search for "barbie porn" on here, you'll turn up plenty of other similar Barbie shots to mine, many of which date back 4 or 5 years. But for whatever reason, my photos aren't appropriate. They're too deviant, if you will, and the fact that policy was specifically changed in Dec 2007 to clarify and allow for these kinds of themes in deviations just doesn't matter. What a joke.
I have deleted all my deviations, and I've sent the following note back to the admin in question to make crystal clear that I terminate any licenses over my photos:
To: [name redacted to protect the guilty]
Regarding my Bizarro Barbie series which was blocked by you/your staff and which you refused to look at or reinstate despite the Dec 2007 policy change allowing sexually themed humor, I have deleted all my deviations and hereby give you notice that dA should completely delete Menage Troirbie, Tramp Stamp Barbie in Action, Blowjob Barbie in Action, and Bikini Boner Ken from any and all of its systems, and I revoke any permissions to use, distribute, display etc these works from this point forward.
I suggest you do a search for "barbie porn" on dA whereby you'll turn up plenty of other similar art that fits the Dec 2007 policy change, yet much of it was around long before then. The targeting of my particular pictures out of the masses still bewilders me, but whatever. dA clearly cares little to nothing for its own policies, much less the art or artists on the site. Good day.
So I'm done. dA has marginalized itself, and the admin in charge of enforcing policy can't be bothered to uphold it in anything but an arbitrary manner. This isn't worth my time or energy. I'm too old for this crap. I'll be on Flickr.