Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
The issue with the current policy is that, if strictly enforced, something like 90% of Korean girls (and >50% of Asian girls in general, along with a considerable % of girls altogether) would have to be banned. Faceshrinking in particular is just very common for Korean girls specifically.
Take Chunri Kim for example: Some of her pictures are clearly altered to make her head appear smaller, yet others are seemingly unaltered. In lieu of going through each picture and verifying which one is edited and which one isn't (unreasonable to expect this from mods), a blanket ban is the easier way out, but at some point, deciding who isn't or who is banned becomes mostly arbitrary. Would 30% edited pictures still be ok, but 40% too much? Is faceshrinking still acceptable, but anything else not? What about filters? I don't think it's possible to come up with a policy that would properly account for all of these considerations. At the end of the day, nobody truly knows to which degree a picture has been altered.
Hence, I'd like to propose a more practical solution. My proposal would be to flag the pictures of those who have at least some pictures that are clearly edited. It would basically be a content warning, along the lines of "Keep in mind that this picture may have been digitally altered." This could even be combined with a content filter, i.e. one would have to opt-in to be able to view pictures of flagged girls. That way, people that enjoy a girl's content regardless of the editing could still do so, yet those who unaware of pictures possibly being edited would get a clear warning. I think that's a compromise everyone involved could live with.
My apologies if something similar has already been brought up, I didn't read through the entire thread.
I feel a bit stupid for not noticing this before, but it does explain why some pictures of Kang look a bit weird (hot, but weird). Do we think all her videos are doctored like this as well as the still images?
I'm not finding the same level of outrage at it as some people though - to me it would be a shame to banish every single image and video of hers from the site, or even from the main site to a forum. The tag idea sounds OK to me. Could it even just be added to the existing set of tags, and add the ability to exclude one or more tags from the search?
It’s not just Kang. Though the head shrinking (among other touch ups) tend to be a bit easier to spot.
There are plenty of women, including Sunny Andrews, Qimmah Russo and some other popular ones, make slight alterations. The difference is they tend to either be harder to spot because of backgrounds they are in front of, or are subtle enough that it’s not noticeable at all. The really dumb ones alter one photo but not the next, even though the setting is the same, and provide a reference to whether or not something is wavy or not. The bigger names prob have editors who are a little more savvy to help them. Seriously, again, watch the Goob videos. You will be surprised.
The problem is borderline whatabouttism, since almost all professional pics are doctored (the exception being onstage / backstage ones).
Look at any portfolio and you'll notice the model's head is smaller, making her look much bigger physique-wise. And this isn't new by a long shot: they've been doing this for decades (less to do with digital edition and more with lenses, or so I've heard). I agree with those that think a "Morphed" tag would help, instead of simply banning models.
the vast majority of photos on this site are not "professional". Most of Kang's photos are taken in the gym or the locker room. This is not "professional"
A great deal of them are - keep in mind that many studio pics are allowed here. Asian ones may be the first that come to mind, but others exist.
Would it be practical for mods to less strictly enforce the morph rule?
Maybe only remove girls' pictures if a) their morphs are obvious b) their morphs are subtle like Kang Eun Hee, and they get reported by users (and only ban such girls from the site if all of their images are confirmed to be morphs).
For example, if some pictures of a girls are subtle morphs like Kang Eun Hee's, what could be done is that those subtly morphed pictures are left alone unless reported for being morphs. And if a subtly morphed picture is reported, it gets removed.
However any obviously morphed pictures would have to be removed.
Or, we could stay with the current ban on morphed images and post morphed images on the forum. There could be a dedicated forum section for morphed pictures.
This is a compromise that popped into my head.
One option I've been considering (which I think was also suggested upthread) is to have a "soft" blacklisting option for women like Eun Hee Kang. Her pictures would still exist on the site, and would show up only if you go to her gallery page, but not anywhere else on the site (including the front page). This would make it so that anyone who knows about her pics and wants to see them can do so, but the pics are never shown alongside the other non-morphed pictures on the site.
I would appreciate that option a lot, and I think with me about a thousand people who subscribed to her posts :)
I think the forum is the best option, where you can post things as they come up. Fact is, as mentioned previously in this thread, once they have a pattern of morphing, you can't trust anything they post.
Even though I am slightly open to a compromise involving lighter rule enforcement, this seems like the best option.
I think the forum is the best option, where you can post things as they come up. Fact is, as mentioned previously in this thread, once they have a pattern of morphing, you can't trust anything they post.
Forums are not a great way to catalog images, which is why the main site isn't a forum. But you already know this. You only think the forum is the best option because it suits your own personal wants, not because you believe it's an equitable solution. As you've stated before, if it was up to you even Instagram filters would be grounds for removal. That certainly speaks to your bias on the matter.
As for the matter of "professional" vs not, you've stated yourself that you think the bigger names have "more savvy editors." That supposition alone suggests a degree of professionalism involved in said photos. Whether in a gym or a studio, with a dedicated camera or a phone,a pic that has an intent to sell a brand or a product and is composited and edited to do so is by its very nature "professional." That's simply the reality that we live in with regards to social media as opposed to traditional media.
I find it wild that some are so passionate about slight digital alterations not being on the site. First of all, it's 2022. Every modern cell phone can slap a filter on that can do anything from smooth your skin to give you an extra set of arms. It's unrealistic, hilariously so, to not expect photos to be touched up at all.
And it's certainly someone's right to not like altered photos, but I just can't imagine making such a stink over it when you can simply do what everyone else does when they see a model or pic they don't like... move on.
I find it wild that some are so passionate about slight digital alterations not being on the site. First of all, it's 2022. Every modern cell phone can slap a filter on that can do anything from smooth your skin to give you an extra set of arms. It's unrealistic, hilariously so, to not expect photos to be touched up at all.
There's a difference between putting on a filter and editing photos to make muscles look bigger.
The issue is not one of filters per se, the issue is one of the degree of deception . We all know filters are used to smooth skin , remove blemishes , but this is not a site about having perfect skin and only becomes notable when it is excessive, such as in the Barbra Carita pic I posted earlier and in her galleries. Of course when you know what Photoshop can easily do , you start to notice it in use everywhere.
There was once a FBB called Nena Cortes (who I find is backlisted anyway) whose pics often looked suspiciously over proportioned with a tiny waist. Then the question arises, - maybe it applies to certain images of a woman, and other images maybe considered Ok. But virtually all Eun Hee Kang pics are from the same source, (herself) , which makes a blanket ban easier if she is suspect until the unlikely event she does a pro studio or paysite shot (which mostly wouldn't be allowed here anyway) . I don't know what the overall solution is . I had never suspected face shrinking as a phenomena . Possibly a banner warning or downgrading/shadow ban on overall presence on the site but I'm not that attached to her pics that I wouldn't be Ok with the ban - it's just that we need a consistent policy.
There's a difference between putting on a filter and editing photos to make muscles look bigger.
Obviously. But now there's a mod on record saying that if it were up to him, even simple filters would be banned. It's silly. I think the ban is an eyeroller, but personally don't really care that much. I can still go to her instagram. I just think it's funny to see assumedly grown adults get so fussy over some image correction.
the Barbra Carita pic I posted earlier and in her galleries.
Galleries that are still unbanned and still full of obvious morphs. That one pic was removed, but there are pages of photos morphed and altered beyond reality in some cases. Funny how she didn't warrant a full ban.
I am a bit bothered by photos that are overly done with filters. It's not for any moral reasons, though. I draw, and I use this site to find reference photos of muscular women, and sometimes filters can make it hard to decipher details.
> Speaking of Korea, this site feels more and more like North Korea by the day.
Lol. Lmao.
It's a free site, and the moderators are volunteers. I'm sorry if you think excessively photoshopped images not being allowed is equivalent to reads hand living under an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship but... I have no followup, the thought is too ridiculous to respond to.
Any set of rules = communism! Lol
I am a bit bothered by photos that are overly done with filters. It's not for any moral reasons, though. I draw, and I use this site to find reference photos of muscular women, and sometimes filters can make it hard to decipher details.
It’s a little hilarious that there isn’t a dual filter yet that will smooth out facial blemishes but also increase contrast for forced muscle definition
Hey guess what? You've made another really questionable decision! It's becoming a trend, so I guess there's something to be proud of in there somewhere. Here's the thing, though: Eun Hee's photos seemed to be pretty popular. Maybe I'm misremembering because I did have her in my follow list, but I recall seeing new pics of her hit the "High Score Today" section regularly.
I won't fall into the same over-dramatic rhetoric of comparing the site to North Korea, but I will point out that moderation and site decisions have started to seem less like they're being made "for the good of the members" and more like "because it's our club and this is what we want." From the outside looking in, there's a serious lack of objectivity. It's not a very good look.
"There's a serious lack of objectivity". Exactly.
Example of face being filtered to where it might as well be a different person: https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/1835669/
Being objective means putting aside my bias towards even women I am a fan of to recognize whether or not they are trying to fleece their followers by putting out a product that is blatantly not real.
Y'all are swimming in subjectivity and allowing your feelings toward a certain insert whomever get in the way. Live in reality, stop being catfished. They are lying to you no matter how small an edit is, and judging by some of the threads around here most of y'all have never met a bodybuilder in person. And to be clear, I'm not talking about a filter which changes skin smoothness without changing head dimensions or something. Some of you will say "wow her waist is so small and her shoulders are so broad!" while ignoring the refrigerator behind her that was inspired by Salvador Dali.
We're still discussing how to handle and setting it up without making the site spaghetti code and also not lumping a large load on Chainer's plate.
Disagreeing with this kind of compromise is pretty unreasonable. A "soft" blacklist is equitable to all sides.