NSFW/Image Macro: Diamonds In The Buff

The page image here seems to be cutting it a little bit too close to NSFW, in my opinion. While it's true the trope subject is inherently risqué, the page image here could conceivably get you in trouble in public or at work.

Yeeeah. That one is pretty close to the line. Close enough to make it worth looking for a new one.

Previous thread here. The link to the suggested Kate Winslet in Titanic in that thread is dead, but I believe it was this one◊.

edited 5th Apr '14 8:31:46 AM by Madrugada

Madrugada's linked image is better than the current.

other suggestions from the examples:

• Lisle's necklace in Film/DeathBecomesHer◊
• a cosplayer of Dejah Thoris.◊ Not much more covered, but a less revealing position.

Oh, one other thing: in the previous thread, the argument was made that they need to be completely naked except for the jewelry. The page description does not seem to support this requirement, saying only that the presence of the jewelry calls attention to what she's not wearing. For instance, the fact that Lisle has on a brief skirt doesn't make the necklace a poor example.

edited 5th Apr '14 8:48:41 AM by Madrugada

I don't really have an objection to the current, but of the suggestions, I like Lisle the most.

I'd choose Lisle or Kate Winslet.

4.1 is best. Kate Winslet is good, but the diamond isn't covering anything. The crop is.

It's not "jewelry covering stuff". It's wearing jewelry in a way that emphasizes the clothing that isn't there — the jewelry may or may not actually cover anything. We'll need the "covering stuff" part to stay SFW.

edited 5th Apr '14 10:30:42 AM by Madrugada

The Lisle pic is good with me.

Don't want to add to an echo chamber, but Lisle's is definitely less likely to get people in trouble.

edited 5th Apr '14 4:17:37 PM by CalamityJane

@OP: Maybe this is me being pedantic with your choice of wording but first of all, I would like to say that if the image is simply "cutting it a little too close to NSFW" as opposed to actually crossing the line, I don't think that should be reason enough on its own for an image change. In fact, I'd argue that's more reason to keep it as is; certainly from a macro scale.

My rationale for this is that each time we make changes simply because it's nearing the limit (as opposed to passing it), what we wind up doing is setting a new standard. Then, someone somewhere at some point might then make a similar cautionary correction to another image that is nearing this new limit and what you wind up with is a situation where we might end up constantly shifting the goal post further and further back. It's the same reasoning (just in the opposite direction) why people get cautioned for trying to test the limit with more and more risque images.

That said, just so that I'm a complete hypocrite, and just in case a more work safe image is indeed desired, what about this image◊ of Faye from The Secret Circle? This should most definitely be SFW seeing as it's from a TV show aimed at teens that used to air on the CW.

edited 5th Apr '14 5:37:09 PM by peasant

^ The problem is that there's no clear-cut solid "line" that we can point at and say

<—- This is SFW | This is NSFW—>

It's more like

edited 5th Apr '14 6:04:17 PM by Madrugada

Any possible page image on this subject is inherently going to NSFW in most workplaces. If the current one is not good enough, then all that's being accomplished by suggesting others is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Pull it entirely.

edited 5th Apr '14 10:42:08 PM by Night

I do not think that any image here is NSFW, neither here in Switzerland nor by the definitions I have seen in other threads here.

That said, since I don't like skinniness, my subjective opinion disapproves of 4.2 and now of 2 as well. So, 4.1 it is for me.

Personally, I've never fully gotten the whole NSFW situation. Maybe I've had overly strict workplaces but for employers would take issue with us spending our work hours browsing entertainment websites like TV Tropes or You Tube irrespective of the presence/absence of scantily clad women.

If we were concerned about workplace regulations, we wouldn't be reading TV Tropes during work hours. Period. And if it's because of what your colleagues think of you, then the context and content would be relevant, no? And in that respect, some common sense should be used. Just as reading the biography of a porn star may not be the smartest thing to do at work regardless of whether or not there are pictures of him/her, perhaps reading a TV Tropes article titled 'Diamond in the Buff' may not be something you want to be doing.

All in all, this is not to say that I think nudes and the like should be allowed on-site. I get a degree of cleanliness is expected and thus needed on the site. However, it should be taken in context. Had this been say a trope about food or what not, then yes - the current pic would be a tad excessive. But given what the trope is about, a certain degree of NSFW-ness is needed. And in my opinion, anything that doesn't require the viewer to be 18+ to see would be a good benchmark.

The Lisle pic is the best compromise because it simultaneously makes you aware that she's not wearing anything under the necklace but also obscures her breasts and belly. At wiki size, it works even better.

edited 6th Apr '14 6:55:07 AM by Willbyr

I don't like looking at dark images on a white background.

I don't know. I like darker images myself.

17 does a great job.

I think 17's too bright; can you get about halfway between it and 16?

I'd like to see one midway between 16 and 17. The darker one looks murky at wiki size, but the light one looks washed out and as though the set was overlit.

'd

edited 6th Apr '14 7:03:06 PM by Madrugada

No problem.

Much better.

Yeah. Yeah. 22 is very good. The brightness is nicely abalanced. The candle and sconces aren't washed out, and the full glory of that necklace still shows.

edited 6th Apr '14 8:23:53 PM by Madrugada