Forum:A Frank Discussion on the Use of Nudity

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > A Frank Discussion on the Use of Nudity
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3960 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
So... Uncyclopedia seems to have a lot of images with nudity on 'em... (every single one of those words links to an image) Think we should give it a rest? ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|VFP|+S 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also a question of placement. Is this acceptable? and what about this? sannse@fandom (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


I do have to ask, why did one of those links go to a picture of a kitten? (I readily admit that I clicked on all of them, but it was all in the name of saving uncyclopedia from such slut. I mean smut. --Sir Jam 14:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been freely zapping gratuitous copyright violations of this sort that don't even have an article to justify them - David Gerard 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Votes (and motivations)

Delete all erotic images that don't contribute to the humour value of an article. ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|VFP|+S 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Flush - If there's not 3 boobies (or nipples) or anything actually funny with the pic or it's placement/context. Usenet is for PrOn. Uncyclopedia is for dummies humour. User:Tooltroll/sig 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This needs some fairly precise shooting, I reckon (No Mhaille, that's not an innuendo you dirty boy). Some of our NSFW images do have a comedic relevance to their articles, but I favour the deletion of gratuitous pr0n. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vaporize all gratuitous pr0n pics! --General Insineratehymn 12:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill images @ admin discretion. ~ While I'm in favour of people having some liberty with their user pages, they shouldn't be using Uncyclopedia as server space for their porn collection. Any pix which aren't funny or relevant to articles should go to the dustbin, and any repeated attempts by the same users to re-upload the same crap should be consequenced. ~ T. (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As with all things, it has to come down to the comedic value, some of those images are funny on their own, some have great captions, everything else is a waste of resources. (Examples of innuendo, Codeine? Would you like me to give you one?) -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
I say delete based on context, also, can we really accept THIS?!? --Olipro Icons-flag-gb Anchor KUN (Harass) 13:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
OH HELL NO! --General Insineratehymn 15:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. At least that one made me laugh!! User:Tooltroll/sig 08:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
That would in fact be one of the 100 worst pr0n movies of all time - David Gerard 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why in the name of FUCK is that image still existing?--Witt, Union leader of Union member UNion Entertain me* 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete at sight. guilty till proven innocent. trash nudity as soon as it is uploaded. uploaders should make a special request to an admin offering reasons why the img should be retained. i find some templates, like {{Picture Whore}} equally tasteless -- who to blame? -- mowgli 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all unnecessary pr0n and place in DiZ's subpage --Er, no, this is NOT DiZ... o_O --NotDiZ 15:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Return decency, standards and morality to Uncyclopedia! Or morality, at least.--Procopius 16:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or delete, it all depends on the context, really.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
that's like saying, kill or spare, depends on the context really. i recall someone posting a series of imgs from, of a girl masturbating, to illustrate some obscure point in a page of his creation. i then came to know, see and visit "" 'cos i happened to be uploading an img right then and had clicked "recent changes" to recall the correct name of the img i had uploaded. i notice now that those imgs have since been deleted by an admin. but i was a bit flummoxed by the guy's sincere (and funny from his pov of course) efforts - here i was, i thought, squandering my precious e-porn time on uncyclopedia and here was a guy trying valiantly to wake me up? -- mowgli 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
So you agree with me, then. The context is critical. For example, with no context this nipple could offend. But in the correct context, it's a funny nipple. Or it's creepy. Or both.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
i forgot to mention that i did not find his valiant efforts funny. but yes, i agree, the context does determine the value of the content (after all, i did upload this once). however, reckless uploading of contextless nudity has become more a norm than an exception here in the last few weeks -- as moneysign correctly pointed out (perhaps some seeping radiation is behind this sudden hormonal change...dunno). lastly & sadly i find Wikipedia:Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg most erotic - 'cos of the context, no doubt. uncyc. should be erotic subtly but what's subtlety to a raging 18 yr. old penis? -- mowgli 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with discresion Oh the days when, as I am using a computer in public, all of "Recent Files" seems to be anime porn. I say we try and keep porn to minimum, but however realize that nudity can be funny. --Sir Zombiebaron 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
W00t! I actually 'chopped that pic for a bit in Canadians that eventually got cut. I never did find another home for it.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Burn em' all and cast that sinner into everlasting fire.--Jtaylor1Small Egg 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
ARG! That hozer stole my idea, eh? --Sir Zombiebaron 23:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all Isn't it supposed to be Æncæclæpædæ Dræmætæcæ that needs nudity to get attention? Mr. Briggs Inc. 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?
  • Just remove them from articles where they don't add to the humor in any way. I can see pretty much all images having context at least somewhere or other. --User:Nintendorulez 00:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Nin, only I would add that Mhaille's content should be checked on a daily basis. I swear, you never know WHAT that guy's gonna upload. Also, I didn't click this Forum title, because I'm not a perv, you sickos.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that nudes are ok, but when they start to engage in some sex act, that is when it becomes porn. The nudes should be fine as long as context describes why they are funny. We really need a disclaimer that some images and text on this site are for adults and should not be viewed by children. Put a warning that you have to be at least 13 to view this web site, as most web sites have that kind of parental warning. Children under 13 are usually damaged by seeing such images and text, but 13 and older can handle it better with an adult's supervision (PG-13 or whatever). The R-Rated and higher images, should be either removed/deleted, or used in a way that is funny and not for shock or porn. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Image:Perfect4.jpg, it's the new background on my phone ^_^ the banner reads "lol, bewbs" --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it's tastefully done, in which case it's art. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a big fan of boobies. However, we are not an image storage site. Images only on a userpage should count as unused images and deleted. If not being used for parody, they most likely run afoul of copywrong law. If there is at least minor parodical value to the image, keep the boobies. I mean image. And that goes for all boobies. I mean images. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 11/13 21:55
  • Comment - I've got two (non-booby) pics on my userpage as ornaments. They're original, so copyright is not an issue. I don't see a problem with a limited number of userpage pics, but you're right- we shouldn't be hosting massive porn galleries here. (And, as I find articles where my "ornaments" will fit, I insert them, ie. the images I later added to Fatties were originally test uploads for my userpage, when I was a new noob.)
  • Abstain. 1) My standard follows that of Netherlands and I never see mere boobies as anything worthy of my concern. 2) I believe that even if the nude women images are found, by any chance, entirely useless, the subsequent deletion of them will not make a change to our total number of useless/orphaned pictures. 3) I don't even know what you guys are thinking, but I guess our female users must have laughed their own heads off already. Women have boobs, so don't get too surprised by them. -- The Colonel (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems you misunderstand how the world works. Boobs have women attached to them. I cannot fathom what the world would be like if it was the other way around. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 11/15 01:57
  • Man, I shouldn't have trusted that lousy textbook in the first place! Now I feel so cheated... -- The Colonel (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of men vs women (excuse me while I retrieve that slightly singed bra...) I've no objection to breasts in general, or even to very specific breasts, I just don't think that titty humour is what uncyc is or should be about. If the only humour is OMG BOOBIES!! then I don't think we should have it. It's a matter of taste, not horror over the exposure of a scary nipple. (for those that don't know, I'm female... no really... honest....) -- sannse@fandom (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understund how come so many people seem to agree that this is a matter of taste, but reject the same idea on the ground of freedom of speech and the claim "that every kind of humor can have its place at uncy" when it comes to mocking people suffering from horrible diseases. If it was a matter of taste this is the kind of picture that should trouble us. Chicks with two healthy tits are not that untastefull.---Asteroid B612B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Errr... I don't want to see another nude Misty from Pokemon. Maybe Little Washu's Doodles will clear that up.--Jtaylor1Small Egg 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete: I agree that Uncyclopedia shouldn't be an image dumping ground on basic principle, but there's articles where "teh b00bies", as the vernacular goes, are needed for the joke. And some of those are actually decent jokes. I say delete any boob-centric image that isn't being used for a legitimate article, but keep the rest. Note that this has nothing to do with the fact that I've authored such an article. --CaptainSpam MUN PUTPBAA 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. i think this is the single biggest collection on any one page in the net. -- mowgli 09:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ewwwwwwww, there were penises in there! I'm scared, mommy! --General Insineratehymn 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are they doing that, btw? For me, it just doesn't make any sense. It's gneomI 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, boobs are somewhat acceptable - when they are really needed, maybe we could blacktag them. Genitalia and details of lower intestine parts (and what they do when they meet) should be a no no - or, again, blacktagged, these ones for sure. herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's getting out of hand I agree, but I think we should just delete new images and keep the ones we have. Unistyle 02:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's about funny, not about taste. I say the warning on the upload page is good policy. Images with very little or no humor value should be subject to deletion. "OMG Boobies!" is occassionally funny, but as a rule, such images should be looked on with some prejudice. Some of the images money linked to are legit though. To answer Sannse's question: no, i don't think userpages with galleries of porn are acceptable use. Nor do I think plastering them on Vandalism or related pages counts as humor value. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Genuinely depends- I would say delete all, but then I remembered that bit in Airplane! where everyone's panicking and then a naked woman runs into the middle of the shot and bounces around for no apparent reason. Good for so many reasons... --Sir Jam 09:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Make the naked people go away, mommy. Most of them don't seem to add much value an article, and better (funnier) pictures can replace them. Besides, they make the place look trashy. Swordmaster 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A Nude Discussion on the Uses of Frank

Score: 0 gross-outs

A Useful Discussion on the Nudity of Frank

Has the burnination started?

It looks like we got a strong vote for removing the more irrelevant porn images -- has that begun?--Procopius 04:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


So sayeth Jesus; so sayeth Sophia. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd take that more seriously if you weren't nude. That bowtie's a nice touch though.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


These guys had this same conversation about this. Erotic Depictions Sir Severian Severian1 CUN (Sprich mit mir!) Kraut 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My favorite part of that discussion is when someone links to one of the pictures and says, "I don't think this picture is very erotic. It should be replaced." Oh, the joys of Wikipedia deadpan, both intentional and accidental.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools